Safety and Efficacy of Cultured/Noncultured Mesenchymal Stromal Cells without Concurrent Surgery for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantity of studies investigating mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) for knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment is not restricted, unlike the amount of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that can be found in the literature. MSCs demonstrate a promising potential for safe pain relief of OA, yet indeterminate conclusions prevail due to heterogeneous reporting and study design. By evaluating PubMed and ScienceDirect for RCTs that describe patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and adverse events (AEs), we investigate safety and efficacy of MSCs for knee OA unaccompanied by adjuvant surgical intervention. This systematic review is performed in alignment with preferred reported items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. In addition to PROMs and AEs, we review included studies for stromal cell variants, follow-up, and imaging modalities, reporting our results in tables and text. Twelve studies that ranged from 1 wk to 4 yr and examined 428 patients and 856 knees met inclusion criteria. Six studies (50%) evaluated bone marrow MSCs, five (42%) evaluated adipose-derived MSCs, and one (8%) evaluated umbilical cord MSCs. All studies reported significant PROM improvement. Mean improvements in the visual analog scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, ranging from 0 to 40 and 10 to 32 points, respectively, were observed. Of 343 total patients, 135 (39%) experienced AEs. Whereas most AEs involved self-limiting knee swelling and pain, only three (0.8%) were severe enough to require overnight hospitalization. MSCs without adjuvant surgery offer a safe and efficacious conservative treatment option in knee OA patients by alleviating and decreasing pain for up to 12 mo. However, study limitations and contradictory findings require more evidence regarding cartilage repair.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.071 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".