ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Intramyocardial Stem Cell Transplantation during Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Safely Improves Cardiac Function: Meta-Analysis of 20 Randomized Clinical Trials.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk stratification of outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting in ischemic cardiomyopathy with symptomatic heart failure.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Cardiac function and mortality of stem cell therapy in patients with coronary artery disease who underwent coronary artery bypass graft without heart failure: A meta-analysis.Biomedical reports · 2025Article
- Transendocardial injection of expanded autologous CD34+ cells after myocardial infarction: Design of the EXCELLENT trial.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Establishing delivery route-dependent safety and efficacy of living biodrug mesenchymal stem cells in heart failure patients.World journal of cardiology · 2024Article
- Stem Cell Therapy against Ischemic Heart Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IMSC transplantation during CABG is considered one of the most promising methods to effectively deliver stem cells and has been widely studied in many trials. But the results of outcomes and safety of this modality still vary widely. We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate not only the outcome but also the safety of this promising method. A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken using the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Articles were thoroughly evaluated and analyzed. Twenty publications about IMSC during CABG were included. Primary outcomes were measured using LVEF, LVESV, LVESVI, LVESD, LVEDV, LVEDVI, LVEDD, WMSI, and 6-MWT. Safety measures were depicted by total deaths, MACE, CRD, CVA, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, and cardiac-related readmission. IMSC transplantation during CABG significantly improved LVEF (MD = 3.89%; 95% CI = 1.31% to 6.46%;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.