ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2026
Efficacy and safety of bone marrow mononuclear cell therapy for myocardial infarction: a dose-response meta-analysis.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) have been investigated as a potential regenerative therapy for myocardial infarction (MI). However, whether their clinical benefits are sustained over time and what constitutes an optimal therapeutic dose remain uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and dose-response relationship of BMMNC therapy in patients with MI. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BMMNC therapy with standard therapy or placebo in patients with MI were systematically searched in relevant databases. Statistical analyses were performed using R. Continuous outcomes were summarized as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and dichotomous outcomes were summarized as risk ratios (RRs) with 95%CIs. Random-effects models were used for pooled analyses. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and restricted cubic spline models were performed to explore the effects of follow-up duration and cell dose on treatment outcomes. Results: A total of 43 RCTs involving 2,213 patients receiving BMMNC therapy and 1,686 control patients were included. BMMNC therapy significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months (MD = 2.57%, 95%CI: 0.79 to 4.35; p = 0.007), but this effect was attenuated at 12 months and did not reach statistical significance (MD = 1.59%, 95%CI: -0.06 to 3.23; p = 0.057). At the final follow-up, BMMNC therapy was still associated with a significant improvement in LVEF (MD = 2.24%, 95%CI: 0.77 to 3.71; p = 0.004). Meta-regression showed that the improvement in LVEF decreased significantly with longer follow-up duration (β = -0.296 per month, 95%CI: -0.549 to -0.043; p = 0.024). No significant linear or nonlinear dose-response relationship was observed between cell dose and LVEF improvement. Safety analysis showed that BMMNC therapy significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) overall (RR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.45 to 0.86; p = 0.0036). However, this benefit was mainly observed in low- and intermediate-dose studies (<10 Conclusion: BMMNC therapy may improve LVEF in the short term and reduce the risk of MACE in patients with MI; however, the LVEF benefit appears to diminish over time. Current evidence does not support a significant linear or nonlinear dose-response relationship between cell dose and LVEF improvement, although higher cell doses may be associated with increased MACE risk. Taken together, 10
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.