SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2025
Efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy in patients with chronic lower extremity ulcers: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic lower extremity ulcers (CLEUs) remain a major clinical challenge due to their prolonged healing process and risk of amputation. Stem cell therapy (SCT) has emerged as a promising regenerative strategy, with various cell types being explored for their efficacy in treating CLEUs. This umbrella review aims to consolidate the existing evidence on stem cell interventions for CLEUs, providing a comprehensive overview of the current research landscape.
methodsThis umbrella review was conducted following the PRIOR and PRISMA guidelines. We searched across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SCT for CLEUs. The methodological quality and evidence quality of the SRs/MAs were assessed by AMSTAR 2 and GRADE. A quantitative synthesis of all RCTs included in the SRs/MAs to obtain objective and updated conclusions.
resultsA total of 28 SRs/MAs involving 72 RCTs were included. Our updated meta-analysis reinforces that SCT offers potential therapeutic benefits for CLEUs, including improved healing rates, amelioration of tissue perfusion and pain-related indicators, and more favorable prognostic outcomes. No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the SCT and control groups.
conclusionSCT represents a promising adjunctive therapy for CLEUs, with many studies demonstrating its safety and potential benefits. Since current evidence is limited by methodological flaws and study heterogeneity, high-quality RCTs in the future are crucial to prove the benefits of SCT for CLEUs truly.
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.