ReviewFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2026
Optimal strategies for umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes in acute kidney injury: a network meta-analysis in rat models.
Review in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Exosomes derived from umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (UCMSC-Exos) have emerged as a highly promising cell-free therapeutic strategy for repairing acute kidney injury (AKI). However, preclinical evidence regarding their efficacy and optimal administration strategy remains heterogeneous and has not been systematically synthesized. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled experiments evaluating UCMSC-Exos in rat models of AKI. Conventional meta-analyses were performed to pool effect sizes, and frequentist network meta-analyses were used to compare the relative efficacy and ranking probabilities of different interventions. Results: Fourteen studies were included. Conventional meta-analysis showed that, compared with controls, UCMSC-Exos significantly reduced serum creatinine (Scr; SMD = -5.60, 95% CI: -7.61 to -3.60) and blood urea nitrogen (BUN; SMD = -6.33, 95% CI: -8.91 to -3.75), alleviated renal histological injury scores (SMD = -3.62, 95% CI: -4.91 to -2.), and decreased cell apoptosis (SMD = -4.35, 95% CI: -6.06 to -2.64). Network meta-analysis further indicated that, at a fixed dose of 100 μg, tail vein injection was significantly superior to subcapsular renal injection in reducing Scr (SUCRA: 94.2% vs. 55.8%) and showed a similar trend for BUN. Within each administration route, distinct dose-response patterns were observed. For tail vein injection, there were no significant differences in efficacy among 30 μg, 100 μg, and 250 μg, although 100 μg showed the most favorable trend. In contrast, subcapsular renal injection exhibited a dose-dependent pattern, with higher doses (200 μg, 400 μg) being more effective than the lower 100 μg dose. Methodological reporting quality was generally inadequate, and potential publication bias was detected; however, the adjusted effect size remained statistically significant (SMD = -2.59). Conclusion: UCMSC-Exos effectively improve renal function, histopathology, and cell survival in rat models of AKI. Tail vein injection, particularly at a dose of 100 μg, may represent the most effective strategy, whereas subcapsular renal injection may require higher doses to achieve adequate efficacy. These conclusions should be interpreted cautiously, and future studies should more rigorously control for and report potential confounders, such as animal sex and AKI induction methods.
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.