SynthesisCalcified tissue international2025
Would Exosome Therapy be Effective for Bone Regeneration? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Calcified tissue international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bone aging: a paradigm of multiscale degeneration and targeted rejuvenation.Bone research · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Tissue engineering creates possibilities for promoting bone regeneration, which can culminate in an ideal therapy for treating bone defects. Considering its tools, especially exosomes (Exos), inferring its efficiency is fundamental for future clinical protocols. Therefore, this research aimed to analyze, through a systematic review, the effectiveness of Exos therapy for regenerating bone. The study followed the PRISMA, and an electronic search for literature was performed until January 2024 to answer the PICO question: Would exosome therapy be effective for bone regeneration? Bone regeneration and cellular and molecular mechanisms were included in primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. The dosage, route of administration, and source cells have also been reported. The risk of bias was investigated according to the criteria of SYRCLE's RoB tool. The meta-analysis was executed using the standardized mean difference for bone mineral density (BMD) and volume ratio bone/whole bone (BV/TV) for cranial bone defects. A total of 3718 were examined, and after applying the eligibility criteria and excluding duplicates, 91 articles were included in the results. All studies demonstrated that Exos were effective in promoting regeneration of bone defects, being superior to the control groups established by each study included in this review, in most cases. The meta-analysis proved the superiority of Exos when BMD and BV/TV were analyzed. An increase in the levels of Runx2, ALP, OCN, OPN, CD31, COL-1, and VEGF, and presence of osteoblasts, M2-type macrophages, and endothelial cells, indicating osteogenic and angiogenic molecular and cellular mechanisms. The mesenchymal stem cells are the most commonly used origin cells. Exos dosage was varied, associated with scaffolds or hydrogels for application in bone defects. The risk of bias identified high scientific evidence for most domains. The Exos therapy is effective for bone regeneration and shows promise for this purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41077581What 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.