ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cell therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy vs. standard of care in patients diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Immunometabolic reprogramming and mitochondrial dysfunction in acute respiratory distress syndrome: mechanisms, metabolic resilience, and therapeutic perspectives- a narrative review.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- The safety and efficacy of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell for acute respiratory distress syndrome: an open-label and multicenter phase 1 clinical trial.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Long-term monthly mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for advanced chronic lung allograft dysfunction: a single-centre safety and feasibility cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Living bio-drug therapies using mesenchymal stem cells and exosomes for mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of stem cells · 2025Article
- Mesenchymal stem cell therapies for ARDS: translational promise and challenges.Stem cell research & therapy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents a burgeoning treatment approach, supported by numerous preclinical studies confirming its efficacy. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of both the safety and effectiveness of MSC. Methods: We conducted searches across three databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane) for randomized controlled studies up to June 23, 2024. A meta-analysis was performed on variables including adverse events, mortality, changes in the PaO Results: The meta-analysis encompassed 17 experiments involving 796 patients, with 410 undergoing MSC treatment and 386 in the control group. Primary outcomes indicated that MSC treatment did not escalate adverse events [RR =1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90, 1.19; P=0.59; I Conclusions: MSC therapy demonstrates reliable safety, with a significant impact on reducing mortality and improving certain clinical symptoms. Moreover, in certain aspects, it may alleviate the inflammatory response in ARDS. Nonetheless, these findings necessitate validation through additional high-quality randomized controlled trials.
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.