Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35004170›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2022

What is the clinically significant ideal mesenchymal stromal cell count in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee? - Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Sathish Muthu, Ayaz Ali Mir, Rakesh Kumar, Vijendra Yadav, Madhan Jeyaraman, Manish Khanna

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Co-Culture Approaches in Cartilage and Bone Tissue Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sathish MuthuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College and Hospital, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, India.
Ayaz Ali MirIndian Stem Cell Study Group (ISCSG) Association, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rakesh KumarDepartment of Orthopaedics, School of Medical Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Vijendra YadavDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Madhan JeyaramanDepartment of Biotechnology, School of Engineering and Technology, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Manish KhannaIndian Stem Cell Study Group (ISCSG) Association, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Sharda University · INDr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University · INGovernment Medical College and Hospital · INSanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designMeta-analysis.

objectivesWe aim to identify the clinically significant ideal Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) count in the management of osteoarthritis of knee from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) available in the literature. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library till August 2021 for RCTs conducted in the management of knee osteoarthritis using MSC therapy specifying the quantity of MSCs delivered. We categorized the studies based on the MSC count utilized in them into four groups namely <1 × 10

results14 studies involving 564 patients were included for analysis. We noted incremental decrease in the VAS with increasing dosage of MSCs at 12 months [Group I,WMD = 2.641(p = 0.854); Group II, WMD = -4.853(p = 0.379); Group III, WMD = -12.154 (p = 0.316); Group IV, WMD = -15.935(p = 0.116)], and 24 months [Group I,WMD = -6(p = 0.001); Group II, WMD = -15(p = 0.001); Group IV, WMD = -20(p = 0.001)]. We also noted incremental improvement in the WOMAC, KOOS with increasing dosage of MSCs at 12 months [Group I, WMD = 7(p = 0.001); Group II, WMD = 28(p = 0.001); Group IV, WMD = 30(p = 0.001)] and [Group II, WMD = -2.562(p = 0.676); Group III, WMD = 7.670(p = 0.099); Group IV, WMD = 13.475(p = 0.261)] respectively. However, we noted significant reduction in the Lysholm score in Group IV, compared to the others at 12 months (WMD = -12.5, 95%CI[-25.883,0.883]) and 24 months (WMD = -6.6, 95%CI[-23.596,10.396]). We did not find any significant increase in the adverse events with incremental dosage of MSCs in any of the groups compared.

conclusionCompared to the four dosage groups of MSCs analyzed, Group III showed consistent significant improvement in pain and functional outcomes analyzed compared to the other groups. Hence, we recommend a cell volume of 5-10 × 10

Indexed as

Bone-marrow derived mesenchymal stem cellCartilage regenerationCell countKnee osteoarthritisMesenchymal stem cellMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID35004170
PMCPMC8719017
OpenAlexW4200070441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.