ArticleJournal of clinical practice and research2026
Evaluation of the Effect of Different Mesenchymal Stem Cell Microvesicles on Diabetic Wound Healing.
Article in Journal of clinical practice and research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-derived microvesicles play a pivotal role in the regenerative cascade of wound healing. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the therapeutic potential of microvesicles isolated from different MSC sources in the healing of diabetic cutaneous wounds. Materials and Methods: Forty Wistar albino rats were randomly assigned to four experimental groups (n=10 per group). Following the induction of diabetes and the creation of full-thickness circular dorsal skin defects, each group received a distinct treatment: Group 1 received saline (control), Group 2 received adipose-derived stem cell microvesicles (ADSC-MVs), Group 3 received umbilical cord-derived stem cell microvesicles (UCDSC-MVs), and Group 4 received bone marrow-derived stem cell microvesicles (BMDSC-MVs). Outcomes related to re-epithelialization, neovascularization, and collagen matrix formation were evaluated both macroscopically and histologically. Results: The microvesicle-treated groups demonstrated faster wound closure and improved collagen fiber alignment compared with the control group. Angiogenic activity was increased in all treatment groups, with the most pronounced effects observed in the UCDSC-MVs group. Notably, the UCDSC-MVs group exhibited a significantly greater epithelial tongue length than the control group on postoperative days 3 and 14 (p=0.008 and p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion: These findings indicate that UCDSC-MVs possess a superior capacity to promote re-epithelialization and may represent an effective cell-free therapeutic approach for diabetic wound repair.
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.