Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35964145›Full record

SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2022

Effectiveness and safety of stem cell therapy for diabetic foot: a meta-analysis update.

Yuming Sun, Jinhong Zhao, Lifang Zhang, Zhexuan Li, Shaorong Lei

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 25 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.2field-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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Pathology of pain and its implications for therapeutic interventions.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yuming SunDepartment of Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan Province, China.
Jinhong ZhaoSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China.
Lifang ZhangDepartment of Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan Province, China.
Zhexuan LiDepartment of Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan Province, China. lzxuan11733@163.com.
Shaorong LeiDepartment of Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan Province, China. leishaorong@csu.edu.cn.
Central South University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNXiangya Hospital Central South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetic foot (DF) is one of the most common and serious complications of diabetes mellitus (DM), which brings great psychological and economic pressure to patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of stem cells in the treatment of diabetic foot.

methodsAll relevant studies in Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases were systematically searched for meta-analysis. The outcomes consisted of ulcer or wound healing rate, amputation rate, new vessels, ankle-brachial index (ABI), transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2), pain-free walking distance, and rest pain score. Dichotomous outcomes were described as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while continuous data were presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software.

resultsA total of 14 studies with 683 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that stem cell therapy was more effective than conventional therapy in terms of ulcer or wound healing rate [OR = 8.20 (5.33, 12.62)], improvement in lower extremity ischemia(new vessels) [OR = 16.48 (2.88, 94.18)], ABI [MD = 0.13 (0.04, 0.08)], TcO2[MD = 4.23 (1.82, 6.65)], pain-free walking distance [MD = 220.79 (82.10, 359.48)], and rest pain score [MD = - 1.94 (- 2.50, - 1.39)], while the amputation rate was significantly decreased [OR = 0.19 (0.10, 0.36)].

conclusionsThe meta-analysis of the current studies has shown that stem cells are significantly more effective than traditional methods in the treatment of diabetic foot and can improve the quality of life of patients after treatment. Future studies should conduct large-scale, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials with high-quality long-term follow-up to demonstrate the most effective cell types and therapeutic parameters for the treatment of diabetic foot.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootAmputation, SurgicalHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStem Cell TransplantationUlcerDiabetic footMeta-analysisStem cell

Identifiers

PMID35964145
PMCPMC9375292
OpenAlexW4291178211

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.