ArticleHeliyon2024
Effects of bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells-derived therapies for experimental traumatic brain injury： A meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- E2 pretreatment alleviates aggregation of intravenously injected mesenchymal stem cells in TBI by regulating BRG1 to affect adhesion.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Article
- Umbrella review of mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in preclinical models: therapeutic efficacy across diverse conditions.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal (stem) cells [also called MSC(M)] and their extracellular vesicles (EVs) are considered a potentially innovative form of therapy for traumatic brain injury (TBI). Nevertheless, their application to TBI particularly remains preclinical, and the effects of these cells remain unclear and controversial. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis of preclinical studies is necessary to assess the effectiveness of MSC(M) and MSC(M) derived EVs in clinical trials. Methods: The following databases were searched (to December 2022): PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. In this study, we measured functional outcomes based on the modified neurological severity score (mNSS), cognitive outcomes based on the Morris water maze (MWM), and histopathological outcomes based on lesion volume. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of mNSS, MWM, and lesion volume. Results: A total of 2163 unique records were identified from our search, with Fifty-five full-text articles satisfying inclusion criteria. A mean score of 5.75 was assigned to the studies' quality scores, ranging from 4 to 7. MSC(M) and MSC(M) derived EVs had an overall positive effect on the mNSS score and MWM with SMDs -2.57 (95 % CI -3.26; -1.88; Conclusions: MSC(M) and MSC(M) derived EVs are promising treatments for TBI in pre-clinical studies, and translation to the clinical domain appears warranted. Besides, large-scale trials in animals and humans are required to support further research due to the limited sample size of MSC(M) derived EVs.
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.