SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Platelet-Rich Plasma vs. Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Lumbar Disc Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are promising regenerative treatments for lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD), but their comparative efficacy is unclear. This systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the PICOS framework, evaluated their effects on pain, function, and safety. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched, yielding 1694 records, of which 21 studies (nine randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 12 prospective studies) were included. Data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively, and risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined pain and disability at 6 and 12 months using a random-effects model. Indirect comparisons were performed using the Bucher method. Qualitative synthesis showed that PRP consistently reduced pain (often > 50%) and improved function, frequently outperforming corticosteroids. MSCs provided sustained benefits, with follow-up extending up to 72 months in some studies. Quantitative meta-analysis of five RCTs demonstrated that PRP significantly reduced pain at 6 months (mean difference [MD] -16.4 mm) and disability (ODI -12.7), with effects persisting at 12 months in one study. In contrast, MSCs showed a modest but significant reduction in pain (MD -4.3 mm) and minimal functional improvement. Indirect comparisons favored PRP over MSCs at 6 months. Both treatments exhibited favorable safety profiles, with mostly mild and transient adverse events. Overall, PRP appears more effective than MSCs in the short to mid-term, although both therapies are safe. Further high-quality head-to-head RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and define optimal clinical indications.
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.