Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37101285›Full record

SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2023

Mesenchymal stem cells transplantation for perianal fistulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

H Wang, H Y Jiang, Y X Zhang, H Y Jin, B Y Fei, J L Jiang

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Evidence outside the box: Minimally invasive treatment for anal fistula.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

H WangScientific Research Center, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
H Y JiangLife Spring AKY Pharmaceuticals, Changchun, China.
Y X ZhangChangchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun, China.
H Y JinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Colorectal Surgery, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
B Y FeiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Colorectal Surgery, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China. feibingyuan@jlu.edu.cn.
J L JiangScientific Research Center, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China. jiangjinlan@jlu.edu.cn.
Jilin University · CNUnion Hospital · CNChangchun University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerianal fistulas, characterised as granulomatous inflammation of fistulas around the anal canal, are associated with significant morbidity resulting in a negative impact on quality of life and a tremendous burden to the healthcare system. Treatment of anal fistulas usually consists of anal surgery; however, results of closure rates are not satisfactory especially with complex perianal fistulas, after which many patients may suffer from anal incontinence. Recently, the administration of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has shown promising efficacy. Herein, we aim to explore whether MSCs are effective for complex perianal fistulas and if they have either short-term, medium-term, long-term or over-long-term efficacy. Additionally, we want to elucidate whether factors such as drug dosage, MSC source, cell type, and disease aetiology influence treatment efficacy. We searched four online databases and analysed data based on information within the clinical trials registry. The outcomes of eligible trials were analysed with Review Manager 5.4.1. Relative risk and related 95% confidence interval were calculated to compare the effect between the MSCs and control groups. In addition, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was applied to evaluate the bias risk of eligible studies. Meta-analyses showed that therapy with MSCs was superior to conventional treatment for complex perianal fistulas in short-, long- and over-long-term follow-up phases. However, there was no statistical difference in treatment efficacy in the medium term between the two methods. Subgroup meta-analyses showed factors including cell type, cell source and cell dosage were superior compared to the control, but there was no significant difference between different experimental groups of those factors. Besides, local MSCs therapy has shown more promising results for fistulas as a result of Crohn's Disease (CD). Although we tend to maintain that MSCs therapy is effective for cryptoglandular fistulas equally, more studies are needed to confirm this conclusion in the future. SHORT

conclusionMSCs Transplantation could be a new therapeutic method for complex perianal fistulas of both cryptoglandular and CD origin showing high efficacy in the short-term to over-long-term phases, as well as high efficacy in sustained healing. The difference in cell types, cell sources and cell dosages did not influence MSCs' efficacy.

Indexed as

Crohn DiseaseMesenchymal Stem CellsMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationRectal FistulaHumansQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeClinical trialsEfficacy and safetyHealing rateMesenchymal stem cells transplantationPerianal fistulasRandomised controlled trialSystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID37101285
PMCPMC10134595
OpenAlexW4367048930

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.