Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33893619›Full record

SynthesisStem cell reviews and reports2022

MSC-Derived Extracellular Vesicles to Heal Diabetic Wounds: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Animal Studies.

Adrian J M Bailey, Heidi Li, Aidan M Kirkham, Alvin Tieu, Harinad B Maganti, Risa Shorr, Dean A Fergusson, Manoj M Lalu, Heidi Elomazzen, David S Allan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Adrian J M BaileyFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Heidi LiFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Aidan M KirkhamStem Cells and Centre for Innovation, Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Canada.
Alvin TieuFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Harinad B MagantiStem Cells and Centre for Innovation, Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Canada.
Risa ShorrLibrary and Information Services, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Dean A FergussonFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Manoj M LaluFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Heidi ElomazzenStem Cells and Centre for Innovation, Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Canada.
David S AllanFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. daallan@toh.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3261-8289
University of Ottawa · CAOttawa Hospital · CACanadian Blood Services · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExtracellular vesicles from mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC-EVs) have shown promise in wound healing. Their use in diabetic wounds specifically, however, remains pre-clinical and their efficacy remains uncertain less clear. A systematic review of preclinical studies is needed to determine the efficacy of MSC-EVs in the treatment of diabetic wounds to accelerate the clinical translation of this cell-based therapy.

methodsPubMed and Embase were searched (to June 23, 2020). All English-language, full-text, controlled interventional studies comparing MSC-EVs to placebo or a "no treatment" arm in animal models of diabetic wounds were included. Study outcomes, including wound closure (primary outcome), scar width, blood vessel number and density, and re-epithelialisation were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the SYRCLE tool for pre-clinical animal studies.

resultsA total of 313 unique records were identified from our search, with 10 full text articles satisfying inclusion criteria (n = 136 animals). The administration of MSC-EVs improved closure of diabetic wounds compared to controls with a large observed effect (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) 5.48, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.55-8.13). Healing was further enhanced using MSC-EVs enriched in non-coding RNAs or microRNAs compared to controls (SMD 9.89, 95%CI 7.32-12.46). Other outcomes, such as blood vessel density and number, scar width, and re-epithelialisation were improved with the administration of MSC-EVs, with a large effect. ROB across studies was unclear.

conclusionMSC-EVs, particularly following enrichment for specific RNAs, are a promising treatment for diabetic wounds in pre-clinical studies and translation to the clinical domain appears warranted. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42020199327 [248]. Forest plot demonstrating increased wound closure rates of diabetic wounds receiving genetically modified MSC-EVs that were enriched for specific RNAs. DFO = deferoxamine. Control groups were inactive (no treatment or saline) except for 3 studies which used hydrogels without MSC-EVs as control (Li M 2016; Shi 2017; Tao 2016).

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusExtracellular VesiclesMesenchymal Stem CellsAnimalsCicatrixWound HealingDiabetesExosomesExtracellular vesiclesMesenchymal stromal cellsWound healing

Identifiers

PMID33893619
PMCPMC8064883
OpenAlexW3153106390

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.