Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35326416›Full record

SynthesisCells2022

Methodological Flaws in Meta-Analyses of Clinical Studies on the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis with Stem Cells: A Systematic Review.

Christoph Schmitz, Christopher Alt, David A Pearce, John P Furia, Nicola Maffulli, Eckhard U Alt

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cells, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Christoph SchmitzChair of Anatomy II, Institute of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians University, 80336 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4065-1241
Christopher AltIsar Klinikum, General Management, 80331 Munich, Germany.
David A PearceDepartment of Pediatrics, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD 57105, USA.
John P FuriaSUN Orthopedics of Evangelical Community Hospital, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA.
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5327-3702
Eckhard U AltIsar Klinikum, General Management, 80331 Munich, Germany.
Community Hospital · USLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DESanford Health · USTulane University · USUniversity of Salerno · ITUniversity of South Dakota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Conclusions of meta-analyses of clinical studies may substantially influence opinions of prospective patients and stakeholders in healthcare. Nineteen meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of primary knee osteoarthritis (pkOA) with stem cells, published between January 2020 and July 2021, came to inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of this treatment modality. It is possible that a separate meta-analysis based on an independent, systematic assessment of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells may reach a different conclusion. (2) Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for clinical studies and meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells. All clinical studies and meta-analyses identified were evaluated in detail, as were all sub-analyses included in the meta-analyses. (3) Results: The inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of treating pkOA with stem cells in the 19 assessed meta-analyses were most probably based on substantial differences in literature search strategies among different authors, misconceptions about meta-analyses themselves, and misconceptions about the comparability of different types of stem cells with regard to their safety and regenerative potential. An independent, systematic review of the literature yielded a total of 183 studies, of which 33 were randomized clinical trials, including a total of 6860 patients with pkOA. However, it was not possible to perform a scientifically sound meta-analysis. (4) Conclusions: Clinicians should interpret the results of the 19 assessed meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells with caution and should be cautious of the conclusions drawn therein. Clinicians and researchers should strive to participate in FDA and/or EMA reviewed and approved clinical trials to provide clinically and statistically valid efficacy.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeHumansKnee JointProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStem Cellsmeta-analysesprimary knee osteoarthritisstem cellssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35326416
PMCPMC8946093
OpenAlexW4225435165

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.