Mesenchymal stem cells can improve discogenic pain in patients with intervertebral disc degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The meta-analysis aimed to estimate the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells on lumbar discogenic pain in patients with intervertebral disc degeneration. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases with predetermined search strategy up to 18 September 2022. The clinical studies focusing on evaluating the efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells in patients with intervertebral disc degeneration were identified. The primary outcomes were changes of pain score and Oswestry Disability Index. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used for quality assessment. Review Manager was used to conduct the statistical analysis. Pooled risk ratios were calculated based on the random effect model. Heterogeneity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed. Results: There were 2,392 studies were identified in the initial search, and 9 eligible studies with 245 patients were eventually included in this review. The Visual Analogue Scale score was significantly lower in patients after receiving mesenchymal stem cells therapy (mean difference = 41.62; 95% confidence interval 24.32 to 58.93; Heterogeneity: I 2 = 98%; p < 0.01). And the pooled mean difference of Oswestry Disability Index was 22.04 from baseline to final follow-up points (95% confidence interval 8.75 to 35.33; p = 0.001; Heterogeneity: I 2 = 98%; p < 0.001). The pooled reoperation proportion was 0.074 (95% confidence interval 0.009 to 0.175; Heterogeneity: I 2 = 72%; p < 0.01). There were no serious related adverse events associated with the therapy. Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis indicated that mesenchymal stem cells therapy may be effective in relieving pain and improving Oswestry Disability Index significantly in patients with lumbar discogenic pain. Mesenchymal stem cells therapy may also be associated with a lower risk of adverse events and reoperation rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".