SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2022
Changes in best-corrected visual acuity in patients with dry age-related macular degeneration after stem cell transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the impact of mesenchymal stem cell therapy on visual acuity and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in optic neuropathy patients: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Pooled it
- Cell therapy for retinal degenerative disorders: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Pooled it
- AAV-based gene therapies for neovascular AMD.Gene therapy · 2026Review
- Perfluorodecalin and Viscoelastic-Assisted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique for High Myopia Macular Hole Retinal Detachment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStem cell transplantation may improve visual acuity in patients with dry age-related macular degeneration. Herein, we aimed to summarise the evidence on the risks and benefits of stem cell transplantation for improving visual acuity, including the risk of adverse events.
methodsData were obtained from the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, and each database was interrogated from the date of inception until 19 March 2022. The rates of visual acuity outcomes and adverse events associated with stem cell transplantation were examined. All statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42022322902).
resultsThe analysis examined 10 studies (102 patients), including one and three, randomised and non-randomised clinical trials, and one and five, multicentre prospective and prospective clinical trials, respectively. Meta-analysis showed changes in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eyes after stem cell transplantation (6 months: risk ratio [RR] = 17.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.08-47.56, P < 0.00001; 12 months: RR = 11.00, 95% CI 2.36-51.36, P = 0.002). Subgroup analysis showed that different stem cell types achieved better best-corrected visual acuity at post-operative 6 months, compared to that observed at baseline. Four cases of related ocular adverse events and no related systemic adverse events were reported.
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that stem cell transplantation may improve best-corrected visual acuity in dry age-related macular degeneration, based on small sample sizes and fewer randomised controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.