Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36185607›Full record

SynthesisTheranostics2022

Efficacy and safety of small extracellular vesicle interventions in wound healing and skin regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.

Maimonah Eissa Al-Masawa, Mohammed Abdullah Alshawsh, Chiew Yong Ng, Angela Min Hwei Ng, Jhi Biau Foo, Ubashini Vijakumaran, Revatyambigai Subramaniam, Nur Azurah Abdul Ghani, Kenneth Whitaker Witwer, Jia Xian Law

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Theranostics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. DoesFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    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. Article
  15. Review
  16. EGF-loaded, bioactive-richFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Chapter 4.5: New Proposed Treatments for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026
    Review
  20. Review

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Maimonah Eissa Al-MasawaCentre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mohammed Abdullah AlshawshDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Chiew Yong NgCentre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Angela Min Hwei NgCentre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jhi Biau FooSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Taylor's University, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Ubashini VijakumaranCentre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Revatyambigai SubramaniamCentre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nur Azurah Abdul GhaniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, 56000, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Kenneth Whitaker WitwerDepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Richman Family Precision Medicine Center of Excellence in Alzheimer's Disease, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jia Xian LawCentre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) have been proposed as a possible solution to the current lack of therapeutic interventions for endogenous skin regeneration. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence to assess sEV therapeutic efficacy and safety in wound healing and skin regeneration in animal models. 68 studies were identified in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed that satisfied a set of prespecified inclusion criteria. We critically analyzed the quality of studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria, with an emphasis on methodology, reporting, and adherence to relevant guidelines (including MISEV2018 and ISCT criteria). Overall, our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that sEV interventions promoted skin regeneration in diabetic and non-diabetic animal models and influenced various facets of the healing process regardless of cell source, production protocol and disease model. The EV source, isolation methods, dosing regimen, and wound size varied among the studies. Modification of sEVs was achieved mainly by manipulating source cells via preconditioning, nanoparticle loading, genetic manipulation, and biomaterial incorporation to enhance sEV therapeutic potential. Evaluation of potential adverse effects received only minimal attention, although none of the studies reported harmful events. Risk of bias as assessed by the SYRCLE's ROB tool was uncertain for most studies due to insufficient reporting, and adherence to guidelines was limited. In summary, sEV therapy has enormous potential for wound healing and skin regeneration. However, reproducibility and comprehensive evaluation of evidence are challenged by a general lack of transparency in reporting and adherence to guidelines. Methodological rigor, standardization, and risk analysis at all stages of research are needed to promote translation to clinical practice.

Indexed as

Extracellular VesiclesWound HealingAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsReproducibility of ResultsSkinBiocompatible Materialsanimal modelsexosomeextracellular vesicleskin regenerationwound healing

Identifiers

PMID36185607
PMCPMC9516230

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.