SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Efficacy and efficacy-influencing factors of stem cell transplantation on patients with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Front Neurol · 2024-04-12

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1329343PMID: 38682036

Open accessSystematic Review; systematic-review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundCell transplants as a treatment for Parkinson's disease have been studied for decades, and stem cells may be the most promising cell sources for this treatment. We aimed to investigate whether stem cell transplantation contributes to the cure for Parkinson's disease and the factors that may influence the efficacy for this therapy.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and ChinaInfo were thoroughly searched to find controlled trials or randomized controlled trials performing stem cell transplantation in patients with Parkinson's disease. The pooled effects were analyzed to evaluate the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsNine articles were identified including 129 individuals. Stem cell transplantation was an effective treatment for Parkinson's disease (WMD = -14.86; 95% CI: -16.62 to -13.10; p ConclusionData from controlled trials suggest that stem cell transplantation as a therapy for Parkinson's disease can be effective for at least 12 months. The factors that may influence its curative effect are time after transplantation and stem cell types.Systematic review registration(Registration ID: CRD42022353145).

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.