ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Cardiac Repair and Clinical Outcomes of Stem Cell Therapy in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Extracellular Vesicles: Bridging the Translational Gap in Regenerative Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Regenerative Cardiology: Are We Close to Myocardial Repair?Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2026Article
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
backgroundWhile heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains a major global health burden, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has emerged as a promising intervention designed to improve cardiac function and reduce morbidity among patients unresponsive to conventional treatments. MSC therapy has shown promise by targeting left ventricular pressure and improving wall thickness, contributing to reductions in HF-related morbidity and mortality rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis bridges a gap in current research through a focused examination of the most recent clinical trials to cohesively assess MSC therapy in HFrEF patients.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials published from 2018 onwards, which were obtained from multiple databases such as PUBMED, Scopus, EBSCO Medline, EBSCO CINAHL Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library. This review investigates the efficacy and safety outcomes of MSC therapy in patients above 18 years of age with a known diagnosis of heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The primary outcome was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Secondary outcomes encompassed several efficacy outcomes, such as Global Circumferential strain (GCS), the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Quality of Life (QoL), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A PRISMA flow diagram was constructed to illustrate the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of studies at each stage of the review process.
resultsA total of 330 studies were initially identified, but only 12 met the inclusion criteria. MSC therapy resulted in a small, non-significant improvement in LVEF (Hedges' g = 0.096,
conclusionWhile MSC therapy was safe and improved QoL for HFrEF patients, it did not significantly improve LVEF or other efficacy outcomes. Further large-scale, standardized trials are required to better understand the potential role of MSCs in heart failure (HF) therapy.
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.