SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Efficacy and clinical outcomes of bone-marrow mononuclear cell therapy in chronic heart failure: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
- Stem cell-based regenerative therapies for non-ischemic cardiomyopathy: mechanistic insights, clinical evidence, and future directions.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Biomarkers in Heart Failure: A Review and a Wish.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past decade, there has been no clear evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of bone-marrow mononuclear cell (BMMNC) therapy in patients with chronic heart failure (HF).
methodsWe retrieved eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) in patients with heart failure (HF) using a systematic approach of PRISMA guideline and focusing on studies published between 2015 and 2025. We performed a meta-analysis on clinical outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for HF, and mortality, as well as echocardiographic indices, such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled based on the type of outcome.
resultsThe analysis pooled data from 379 patients from 7 RCT studies, including 189 patients experienced BM-MNC and 190 patients in control group. While the stem cell group showed a slight improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [MD=-0.73, 95%Cl (-2.14,0.68), P = 0.31] at both 3 months [MD = 2.34, 95%Cl (-1.94,6.62), P = 0.28] and 1 year [MD = 1.69, 95%Cl (-2.29,5.66), P = 0.41] compared to controls, these differences did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). Furthermore, stem cell therapy demonstrated no significant benefits in reducing morbidity [RR = 0.99, 95%Cl (0.40, 2.49), P = 0.99], mortality [RR = 1.55, 95%Cl (0.50,4.85), P = 0.45], rehospitalization rates [RR = 1.09, 95%Cl (0.63,1.88) P = 0.75], or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) [RR = 0.59, 95%CI (0.14, 2.46), P = 0.47], as well as injection route used (P > 0.05 for all outcomes).
conclusionThe analysis of 7 RCTs found no statistically significant benefits of stem cell therapy on LVEF, clinical outcomes, or MACE, regardless of injection route. Current evidence does not support its routine use; further research is warranted.
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.