SynthesisCell transplantation
Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury in Rat Models: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cell transplantation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is one of the hopeful treatments for spinal cord injury (SCI). Most current studies are in animals, and less in humans, and the optimal transplantation strategy for MSCs is still controversial. In this article, we explore the optimal transplantation strategy of MSCs through a network meta-analysis of the effects of MSCs on SCI in animal models. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed) databases were searched by computer for randomized controlled studies on MSCs for SCI. Two investigators independently completed the literature screening and data extraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan 5.4 software was used to assess the quality of the included literature. Stata 16.0 software was used for standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous variables to combine the statistics and calculate 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
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.