Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35107768›Full record

SynthesisStem cell reviews and reports2022

Extracellular Vesicles as a Cell-free Therapy for Cardiac Repair: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Preclinical Trials in Animal Myocardial Infarction Models.

Kashif Khan, Christophe Caron, Ibtisam Mahmoud, Ida Derish, Adel Schwertani, Renzo Cecere

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Extracellular vesicle therapeutics for cardiac repair.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kashif KhanDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Glen Campus - The Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Decarie Blvd, Block C, C07.1284, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Christophe CaronDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Glen Campus - The Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Decarie Blvd, Block C, C07.1284, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ibtisam MahmoudMcConnell Resource Centre, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ida DerishDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Glen Campus - The Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Decarie Blvd, Block C, C07.1284, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Adel SchwertaniDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Glen Campus - The Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Decarie Blvd, Block C, C07.1284, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Renzo CecereDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Glen Campus - The Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Decarie Blvd, Block C, C07.1284, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. renzo.cecere@muhc.mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3974-5136
Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stem  cell therapy for cardiac regeneration has been gaining traction as a possible intervention for the reduction of the burden associated with MI and heart failure. However, stem cell therapies have several shortcomings, including poor engraftment, limited improvements in cardiac function, and possible teratogenicity. Recently, extracellular vesicles (EVs) from stem cell sources have been explored as a novel therapy to regenerate the injured myocardium in several animal MI trials. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigate the use of stem cell-derived EVs for cardiac repair preclinical trials in animal MI models. Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science and grey literature (Canadian Agency for Drugs, Technologies in Health, and Google Scholar) were searched through August 20, 2020 and 37 articles were included in the final analysis. The overall effect size observed in EV-treated small animals after MI for ejection fraction (EF) was 10.85 [95 %CI: 8.79, 12.90] and for fractional shortening (FS) was 7.19 [95 %CI: 5.43, 8.96] compared to control-treated animals. The most abundant stem cell source used were mesenchymal stem cells which showed robust improvements in EF and FS (MD = 11.89 [95 % CI: 9.44, 14.34] and MD = 6.96 [95 % CI: 4.97, 8.96], respectively). Significant publication bias was detected for EF and FS outcomes. This study supports the use of EVs derived from stem cells as a novel therapy for cardiac repair after MI. Further investigation in larger animal studies may be necessary before clinical trials.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019142218.

Indexed as

Extracellular VesiclesMesenchymal Stem CellsMyocardial InfarctionAnimalsCanadaStem Cell TransplantationAnimalExosomeExtracellular vesiclesIschemiameta-analysisMyocardial infarctionStem cellsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35107768
OpenAlexW4210714786

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.