Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36058903›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2022

Clinical translation of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury still premature: results from a single-arm meta-analysis based on 62 clinical trials.

Zhizhong Shang, Mingchuan Wang, Baolin Zhang, Xin Wang, Pingping Wanyan

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Biomaterials and cell-based therapy post spinal cord injury.Journal of translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Zhizhong ShangThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Mingchuan WangThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Baolin ZhangThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Xin WangThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China. wangxinldyy@126.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0728-6166
Pingping WanyanGansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 730000, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHow much scientific evidence is there to show that stem cell therapy is sufficient in preclinical and clinical studies of spinal cord injury before it is translated into clinical practice? This is a complicated problem. A single, small-sample clinical trial is difficult to answer, and accurate insights into this question can only be given by systematically evaluating all the existing evidence.

methodsThe PubMed, Ovid-Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to February 10, 2022. Two independent reviewers performed the literature search, identified and screened the studies, and performed a quality assessment and data extraction.

resultsIn total, 62 studies involving 2439 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 42 were single-arm studies, and 20 were controlled studies. The meta-analysis showed that stem cells improved the ASIA impairment scale score by at least one grade in 48.9% [40.8%, 56.9%] of patients with spinal cord injury. Moreover, the rate of improvement in urinary and gastrointestinal system function was 42.1% [27.6%, 57.2%] and 52.0% [23.6%, 79.8%], respectively. However, 28 types of adverse effects were observed to occur due to stem cells and transplantation procedures. Of these, neuropathic pain, abnormal feeling, muscle spasms, vomiting, and urinary tract infection were the most common, with an incidence of > 20%. While no serious adverse effects such as tumorigenesis were reported, this could be due to the insufficient follow-up period.

conclusionsOverall, the results demonstrated that although the efficacy of stem cell therapy is encouraging, the subsequent adverse effects remain concerning. In addition, the clinical trials had problems such as small sample sizes, poor design, and lack of prospective registration, control, and blinding. Therefore, the current evidence is not sufficiently strong to support the clinical translation of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury, and several problems remain. Additional well-designed animal experiments and high-quality clinical studies are warranted to address these issues.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord InjuriesAnimalsCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyClinical Trials as TopicClinical trialsMeta-analysisSpinal cord injuryStem cells

Identifiers

PMID36058903
PMCPMC9442938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.