SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2025
Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for radiation-induced xerostomia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiation-induced xerostomia (RIX) is a frequent, debilitating complication of head and neck radiotherapy for cancer. Preclinical studies suggest that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may protect and regenerate salivary glands, but clinical evidence remains fragmented. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy for RIX patients.
methodsComprehensive searches of PubMed, Wiley Online Library, Cochrane, and CNKI were conducted up to July 2025 to identify relevant clinical studies. Two investigators independently screened records. A total of seven trials (n = 360 participants) were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 and R Studio, with unstimulated whole salivary flow rate (UWS) as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included stimulated whole salivary flow rate (SWS), Xerostomia Questionnaire (XQ) scores, and serious adverse events (SAE). Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 and R 4.5.1, with UWS as the primary endpoint. Heterogeneity was assessed by I
resultsPooled analysis of the seven trials showed a statistically significant but clinically negligible increase in UWS with MSCs compared to controls (WMD = 0.02 mL/min, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.03, p = 0.04). No significant differences were found for SWS (WMD = - 0.12 mL/min, 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.04) or XQ scores (WMD = - 0.54, 95% CI - 1.96 to 0.88; p = 0.46). The risk of SAE was not significantly different between groups (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.00-3.84, p = 0.05). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I² >90%). Exploratory network meta-analysis suggested that bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMMSC) might outperform adipose-derived MSCs (ADMSC), but this finding is hypothesis-generating due to being based on a single BMMSC study.
conclusionsMSC transplantationresults in a statistically significant but clinically marginal improvement in UWS for RIX, with no significant increase in SAE. The current evidence does not support the superiority of MSC therapy over conventional management. Future large-scale trials are required to determine if optimized MSC strategies can achieve clinically meaningful benefits.
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.