Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35444516›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2022

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Cell Transplantation for Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Xiongjie Xu, Zeyan Liang, Yike Lin, Jian Rao, Fabin Lin, Zhelun Yang, Rui Wang, Chunmei Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Machine Learning in Stem Cell Research: From Biological Data to Clinical Translation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiongjie XuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Zeyan LiangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Yike LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Jian RaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Fabin LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Zhelun YangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Rui WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Chunmei ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Fujian Medical University · CNUnion Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of transplanted cells from different sources for spinal cord injury (SCI). Design: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Data Sources: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Study Selection: We included randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and case series related to cell transplantation for SCI patients, that included at least 1 of the following outcome measures: American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS grade), ASIA motor score, ASIA sensory score, the Functional Independence Measure score (FIM), International Association of Neurorestoratology Spinal Cord Injury Functional Rating Scale (IANR-SCIFRS), or adverse events. Follow-up data were analyzed at 6 and 12 months. Results: Forty-four eligible trials, involving 1,266 patients, investigated 6 treatments: olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs), neural stem cells/ neural progenitor cells (NSCs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), Schwann cells, macrophages, and combinations of cells (MSCs plus Schwann cells). Macrophages improved the AIS grade at 12 months (mean 0.42, 95% credible interval: 0-0.91, low certainty) and FIM score at 12 months (42.83, 36.33-49.18, very low certainty). MSCs improved the AIS grade at 6 months (0.42, 0.15-0.73, moderate certainty), the motor score at 6 months (4.43, 0.91-7.78, moderate certainty), light touch at 6 (10.01, 5.81-13.88, moderate certainty) and 12 months (11.48, 6.31-16.64, moderate certainty), pinprick score at 6 (14.54, 9.76-19.46, moderate certainty) and 12 months (12.48, 7.09-18.12, moderate certainty), and the IANR-SCIFRS at 6 (3.96, 0.62-6.97, moderate certainty) and 12 months (5.54, 2.45-8.42, moderate certainty). OECs improved the FIM score at 6 months (9.35, 1.71-17.00, moderate certainty). No intervention improved the motor score significantly at 12 months. The certainty of other interventions was low or very low. Overall, the number of adverse events associated with transplanted cells was low. Conclusions: Patients with SCI who receive transplantation of macrophages, MSCs, NSCs, or OECs may have improved disease prognosis. MSCs are the primary recommendations. Further exploration of the mechanism of cell transplantation in the treatment of SCI, transplantation time window, transplantation methods, and monitoring of the number of transplanted cells and cell survival is needed. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier: CRD 42021282043.

Indexed as

Bayesian network meta-analysiscell transplantationefficacyfunctional recoveryspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID35444516
PMCPMC9013778
OpenAlexW4225670797

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.