ReviewStem cells international2024
Comparative Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Clinical Efficacy of Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Different Sources in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Stem cells international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for radiation-induced xerostomia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Towards optimized rehabilitation with regenerative therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of cell-based injections for knee osteoarthritis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Amelogenin Null Mice Develop Osteoarthritis, While Its Application Mitigates Disease Phenotypes in a Rat Model.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Joint articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has emerged as a novel treatment approach for osteoarthritis (OA). However, the effectiveness of MSCs derived from different sources in treating OA patients remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the differences between the effectiveness and safety of different sources of MSCs. Materials and Methods: For inclusion consideration, we searched trial registries and published databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Revman (V5.3), STATA (V16.0), and R (V4.0) were utilized for conducting data analysis, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was employed for assessing the quality of the studies. We derived outcome measures at 6 and 12 months based on the duration of study follow-up, including visual analog scale (VAS) score, WOMAC score, WOMAC pain, WOMAC Functional Limitation, and WOMAC stiffness. The evaluation time for short-term effectiveness is set at 6 months, while 12 months is utilized as the longest follow-up time for most studies to assess long-term effectiveness. Results: The evaluation of literature quality showed that the included studies had excellent methodological quality. A meta-analysis revealed that different sources of MSCs improved knee function and pain more effectively among patients suffering from knee OA (KOA) than controls. The results of the network meta-analysis showed the following: short-term functional improvement (the indexes were evaluated after 6 months of follow-up) (WOMAC total score: bone marrow-derived MSC (BMMSC) vs. adipose-derived MSC (ADMSC) (mean difference (MD) = -20.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -125.24 to 42.88), umbilical cord-derived MSC (UCMSC) (MD = -7.81, 95% CI -158.13 to 74.99); WOMAC stiffness: BMMSC vs. ADMSC (MD = -0.51, 95% CI -7.27 to 4.29), UCMSC (MD = -0.75, 95% CI -9.74 to 6.63); WOMAC functional limitation: BMMSC vs. ADMSC (MD = -12.22, 95% CI -35.05 to 18.86), UCMSC (MD = -9.31, 95% CI -44.26 to 35.27)). Long-term functional improvement (the indexes were evaluated after 12 months of follow-up) (WOMAC total: BMMSC vs. ADMSC (MD = -176.77, 95% CI -757.1 to 378.25), UCMSC (MD = -181.55, 95% CI -937.83 to 541.13); WOMAC stiffness: BMMSC vs. ADMSC (MD = -0.5, 95% CI -26.05 to 18.61), UCMSC (MD = -1.03, 95% CI -30.44 to 21.69); WOMAC functional limitation: BMMSC vs. ADMSC (MD = -5.18, 95% CI -316.72 to 177.1), UCMSC (MD = -8.33, 95% CI -358.78 to 218.76)). Short-term pain relief (the indexes were evaluated after 6 months of follow-up) (VAS score: UCMSC vs. BMMSC (MD = -10.92, 95% CI -31.79 to 12.03), ADMSC (MD = -14.02, 95% CI -36.01 to 9.81), PLMSC (MD = -17.09, 95% CI -46.31 to 13.17); WOMAC pain relief: BMMSC vs. ADMSC (MD = -11.42, 95% CI -39.52 to 11.77), UCMSC (MD = -6.73, 95% CI -47.36 to 29.15)). Long-term pain relief (the indexes were evaluated after 12 months of follow-up) (VAS score: BMMSC vs. UCMSC (MD = -4.33, 95% CI -36.81 to 27.08), ADMSC (MD = -11.43, 95% CI -37.5 to 13.42); WOMAC pain relief: UCMSC vs. ADMSC (MD = 0.23, 95% CI -37.87 to 38.11), BMMSC (MD = 5.89, 95% CI -25.39 to 51.41)). According to the GRADE scoring system, WOMAC, VAS, and AE scores were of low quality. Conclusion: Meta-analysis suggests MSCs can effectively treat KOA by improving pain and knee function compared to control groups. In terms of functional improvement in KOA patients, both short-term (6-month follow-up) and long-term (12-month follow-up) results indicated that while the differences between most treatments were not statistically significant, bone marrow-derived MSCs may have some advantages over other sources of MSCs. Additionally, BM-MSCs and UC-MSCs may offer certain benefits over ADMSCs in terms of pain relief for KOA patients, although the variances between most studies were not statistically significant. Therefore, this study suggests that BM-MSCs may present clinical advantages over other sources of MSCs.
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.