SynthesisCurrent stem cell research & therapy2025
Conditioned Medium Treatment for the Improvement of Functional Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury: A Meta-Analysis Study.
Synthesis in Current stem cell research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile there is no certain treatment for spinal cord injury (SCI), stem cellbased therapy may be an attractive alternative, but the survival and differentiation of cells in the host tissue are poor. Conditioned medium (CM) has several beneficial effects on cells.
objectiveIn this meta-analysis study, we examined the effect of CM on SCI treatment.
methodsAfter searching on MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science, first and secondary screening were performed based on title, abstract, and full text. The data were extracted from the included studies, and meta-analysis was performed using STATA.14 software. A standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval was used to report findings. Quality control and subgroup analysis were also performed.
resultsThe results from 52 articles and 61 separate experiments showed that CM had a significantly strong effect on improving motor function after SCI (SMD = 2.58; 95% CI: 2.17 to 2.98; p < 0.001) and also analysis of data from 12 articles demonstrated that CM reduced the expression of GFAP marker (SMD = -4.16; p < 0.0001) compared to SCI group without any treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that treatment with CM of neural stem cells was better than CM of mesenchymal stem cells. It was more effective after a mild lesion than a moderate or severe one. The improvement was more pronounced with <4 weeks than >4 weeks follow-up.
conclusionCM had a significant effect in improving motor function after SCI, especially in cases of mild lesions. It has been observed that if CM originates from the neural stem cells, it has a more significant effect than mesenchymal cells.
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.