MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409643422 · doi:10.7759/cureus.82713

Autologous Versus Allogeneic Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review, Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2025· review· en· W4409643422 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alousious Kasagga, Eiman Saraya, M. S. Haque, Pousette Hamid

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMesenchymal stem cellOsteoarthritisMeta-analysisStem-cell therapyAdipose tissueRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePhysical therapyOncologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disorder with limited non-surgical treatment options. Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell (AD-MSC) therapy has emerged as a promising regenerative approach; however, the comparative efficacy and safety of autologous versus allogeneic AD-MSCs remain unclear. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular AD-MSCs in adults with Kellgren-Lawrence Grade II-IV knee OA. A comprehensive search identified eight randomized controlled trials that compared high-dose autologous, high-dose allogeneic, and low-dose allogeneic AD-MSCs to placebo or standard care interventions, such as hyaluronic acid, corticosteroids, or physical therapy. The primary outcomes were pain relief, assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional improvement, measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), at three, six, and 12 months. Treatment rankings were determined using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. High-dose autologous AD-MSCs ranked highest for pain relief at three, six, and 12 months (VAS SUCRA: 75.99%, 82.27%, 81.65%), while high-dose allogeneic AD-MSCs ranked highest for functional improvement at six and 12 months (WOMAC SUCRA: 74.6%, 71.71%). Low-dose allogeneic AD-MSCs consistently ranked lowest for both outcomes. Adverse event analysis indicated that low-dose allogeneic AD-MSCs had the highest risk of adverse effects (SUCRA: 22.24%), followed by high-dose allogeneic AD-MSCs (26.52%). In contrast, high-dose autologous AD-MSCs ranked safer (SUCRA: 54.08%). Serious adverse events were rare and unrelated to treatment, and consistency testing confirmed no significant inconsistencies in the NMA framework. Overall, high-dose autologous AD-MSCs provided sustained pain relief over 12 months, while high-dose allogeneic AD-MSCs demonstrated superior long-term functional improvement. These findings support a two-phase treatment model in which autologous AD-MSCs offer early and prolonged symptom relief, and allogeneic AD-MSCs assist in long-term joint recovery. Overall, AD-MSC therapy was well tolerated and may represent a viable, personalized, non-surgical knee OA management strategy.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207