MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408362576 · doi:10.1186/s12891-025-08365-w

Mesenchymal stem cells therapy for the treatment of non-union fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4408362576 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cunbao Cui, Feng Lin, Liang Xia, Xinguang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJadad scaleMeta-analysisOdds ratioBone healingSurgeryRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to pool the existing evidence to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) in patients with non-unions. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed and Scopus was performed until October 2024 to gather pertinent studies. The inclusion criteria included participants with non-unions, the intervention of MSC administration, a comparator of standard treatment (bone graft), and outcomes focused on healing rate, healing time, or side effects. The Jadad score Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. Moreover, GRADE criteria were used to assess the quality of evidence. Using a random effects model, odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for healing and complication rates, while standardized mean differences (SMD) with their 95% CIs were used to assess the impact of MSC therapy on bone union time. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies, with 866 patients, were included. The bone healing rates were 44% at 3 months, 73% at 6 months, 90% at 9 months, and 86% at 12 months, eventually reaching 91% after 12 months of follow-up. MSC therapy, with or without scaffolds, was linked to higher odds of bone healing rate at 3 and 6 months, compared to bone grafts as the standard care (OR = 1.69). The time to union following the treatment was 6.30 months (95%CI: 86-96%), with patients treated with MSC/Scaffold experiencing a shorter time compared to MSC alone (5.85 vs. 6.36 months). MSC therapy significantly decreased bone union time (SMD:-0.54 months, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.33). The complication rate was 1% (MSC/Scaffold: 0%, MSC alone: 2%), with MSC alone or MSC/Scaffold showing a lower risk than the standard care (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.78). CONCLUSION: MSC is a potential adjunct therapy for patients with non-union fractures. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.048
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207