ReviewFrontiers in genetics2024
Impacts of stem cells from different sources on wound healing rate in diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Review
- Nutritional Interventions to Optimize Orthobiologic Therapy Quality in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Framework: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Clinical Outcomes and Safety of Stem Cell Therapy for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Overlapping Meta-Analyses.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Characterisation of the Autologous Adipose Tissue Harvested With Superficial Enhanced Fluid Fat Injection Method for Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Undergoing Minor Amputation (SEFFIDiFA Trial).International wound journal · 2025Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a significant complication of diabetes, with huge implications on patient morbidity and healthcare costs. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impacts of stem cells from different sources on wound healing rate in DFU patients. Methods: We systematically retrieved records via key databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang from the inception to October 2024. The Stata 16.0 (Stata Corp, TX) software was used to perform the meta-analysis. Risk of bias in all included studies was evaluated by Cochrane Risk of Bias version 2. Results: A total of 24 studies involving 1,321 patients were included. There was an increased likelihood of wound healing with peripheral blood-derived stem cells, the most effective cells (odds ratios (OR) = 7.31, 95% CI: 2.90-18.47), followed by adipose-derived stem cells (OR = 5.23, 95% CI: 2.76-9.90), umbilical cord-derived stem cells (OR = 4.94, 95% CI: 0.61-40.03), bone-derived stem cells (OR = 4.36, 95% CI: 2.43-7.85) and other sources stem cells (OR = 3.16, 95% CI: 1.83-5.45). Nevertheless, only umbilical cord-derived stem cells showed statistical significance (p < 0.05). The heterogeneity ranged from non-existent in the adipose and peripheral blood groups (I Conclusion: Our study suggested that stem cells from different sources showed potential in promoting wound healing in DFU, although with some variation in effectiveness. Despite some publication bias and moderate heterogeneity, the overall therapeutic effect remained positive. These findings indicated that stem cell therapy might influence the progression of DFU.
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.