Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39078426›Full record

SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025

Exosomes Exposed: Overview Systematic Review on Evidence Versus Expectation in Aesthetic and Regenerative Medicine.

Eqram Rahman, William Richard Webb, Parinitha Rao, Hany Niamey Abu-Farsakh, Alice E Upton, Nanze Yu, Patricia E Garcia, Sotirios Ioannidis, Karim Sayed, Wolfgang G Philipp-Dormston and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Plant Exosome Injection: A New Boost for Postlaser Vascular Repair.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Eqram RahmanResearch and Innovation Hub, Innovation Aesthetics, London, WC2H 9JQ, UK. Eqram.rahman@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8443-8338
William Richard WebbResearch and Innovation Hub, Innovation Aesthetics, London, WC2H 9JQ, UK.
Parinitha RaoThe Skin Address, Aesthetic Dermatology Practice, Bangalore, India.
Hany Niamey Abu-FarsakhIstishari Hospital, Amman, Jordan.
Alice E UptonResearch and Innovation Hub, Innovation Aesthetics, London, WC2H 9JQ, UK.
Nanze YuPeking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Patricia E GarciaPrivate Practice in Dermatology, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
Sotirios IoannidisPlastic Surgery Clinic, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Karim SayedNomi Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Wolfgang G Philipp-DormstonHautzentrum Koeln, Cologne, Germany.
Mohammad NajlahPharmaceutical Research Group, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK.
Jean D A CarruthersDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Ash MosahebiRoyal Free Hospital, Hampstead, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExosomes, diminutive extracellular vesicles, are integral to intercellular communication, harbouring potential for applications in regenerative medicine and aesthetic interventions. The field, however, grapples with the complexities of harmonising exosome characterisation protocols and safeguarding therapeutic integrity. METHODOLOGY: In this scholarly overview, systematic adherence to the Cochrane Collaboration and Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews guidelines was observed, scrutinising the congruence of exosome-related therapies with the Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles standards delineated by the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles, alongside criteria set forth by the International Society for Cell Therapy and the International Society for Stem Cell Research. A meticulous search strategy spanning databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane database was employed to encapsulate studies pertinent to the isolation, characterisation, and functional assessment of exosomes.

resultsThe initial search yielded 225 articles, of which 17 systematic reviews were selected based on predefined criteria, encompassing 556 primary studies. Notwithstanding the acknowledged therapeutic promise of exosome modalities, the synthesis illuminated a prevalent deficiency in adherence to established reporting and experimental benchmarks, notably in exosome source characterisation and bioactive constituent delineation. A critical appraisal employing the AMSTAR-2 tool underscored a pervasive shortfall in methodological rigour.

conclusionThis review accentuates the imperative for stringent methodological standardisation within exosome research to fortify the validity and reproducibility of empirical findings. Amidst the burgeoning therapeutic optimism, the discipline must rectify methodological disparities and comply with regulatory mandates, ensuring the ethically sound and scientifically robust advancement of exosome-based therapeutic modalities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article.  For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

ExosomesRegenerative MedicineEstheticsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansEvidence-based medicineExosomeNon-surgical aestheticsRegenerative medicine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.