ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2025
Cellular therapy for traumatic brain injury in adults: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) lacks effective clinical treatment. Cellular therapy, which is the transfer of autologous or allogeneic cells or cellular material into the patient(s) for treatment or prevention of disease, has shown better outcomes in TBI in several clinical and preclinical studies. We performed a meta-analysis to synthesize and evaluate the current evidence on cellular therapy for TBI in adult patients. Material and methods: We performed a meta-analysis on published articles on the topic of cellular therapy for the treatment of TBI in adult patients. The literature search was conducted via PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Cochrane Library, Embase, Wan Fang Data and Google Scholar, with no restrictions on publication year. Studies were included based on selection criteria and quality assessment. The following data were extracted from included articles: author names; publication year and place; type of study; number, sex and age of participants; type of cells used; and post-treatment follow-up. The required data related to the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale (FMMS), the Disability Rating Scale (DRS), and patients' overall improvement were pooled and analyzed using RevMan (Ver. 5.4.1). Results: Five studies that met the selection criteria and considered as high quality, containing 367 participants, with an average follow-up time of 7.58 ±6.93 months, were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that cellular therapy significantly improved (OR = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.48; Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that cellular therapy improves the clinical condition of TBI patients. Larger, multicenter clinical trials are required to further confirm these findings and clarify the optimal use of stem cells in TBI.
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.