ReviewSurgical neurology international2025
Current evidence on umbilical cord and bone marrow stem cell therapy in TBI: A scoping review for future clinical practice.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major global cause of long-term disability and death, with current treatments offering limited neurological recovery. Stem cell-based therapies have emerged as promising regenerative approaches. Among them, umbilical cord-derived stem cells (UC-SCs) and bone marrow-derived stem cells (BM-SCs) are frequently explored. This systematic review evaluates and compares the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of UC-SCs and BM-SCs in human TBI patients. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted through March 2025 in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink using relevant keywords. Studies involving TBI patients treated with either UC-SCs or BM-SCs were included, encompassing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case reports. The JBI Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and a narrative synthesis was performed. Results: Fifteen clinical studies involving 552 patients were included: 3 RCTs, 10 cohort studies, and 2 case reports. BM-SC therapy showed notable improvements in motor recovery, white matter integrity, and inflammation reduction, particularly in acute and subacute TBI. In contrast, UC-SC therapy demonstrated greater benefits in chronic TBI, including enhanced cognition, reduced spasticity, and improved quality of life. UC-SCs also had a favorable safety profile with a lower risk of immune rejection. No direct head-to-head trials comparing both stem cell types were found. Conclusion: UC-SC and BM-SC therapies both show promise in TBI treatment, with distinct advantages based on injury phase and therapeutic goals. BM-SCs may be more effective in acute TBI due to anti-inflammatory properties, while UC-SCs appear more suitable for chronic TBI, supporting neuroregeneration. Further direct comparative studies and standardized protocols are needed to refine stem cell therapy for TBI.
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.