MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417274124 · doi:10.1155/sci/4261166

Regenerative Therapy in Osteoarthritis Using Umbilical Cord‐Origin Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Critical Appraisal of Clinical Safety and Efficacy Through Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· article· en· W4417274124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elnaz Lohrasbi, Soraya Babaie, Hadi Hamedfar, Samira Pourzeinali, Azizeh Farshbaf‐Khalili, Vahideh Toopchizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TabrizTabriz University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsOsteoarthritisCritical appraisalMesenchymal stem cellClinical trialRegenerative medicineMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Recent decades have witnessed a high prevalence of knee osteoarthritis among adults, which is associated with chronic pain, functional limitations, and decreased quality of life. Given the ineffectiveness of conventional cartilage regeneration approaches, umbilical cord‐derived mesenchymal stem cells (UC‐MSCs) have emerged as a potential regenerative therapy. In this study, it was aimed to determine whether UC‐MSC treatment for knee osteoarthritis is effective, safe, and what is the optimal dosage to achieve optimal outcomes. Methods This study was conducted as a systematic review and meta‐analysis based on the PRISMA 2020 guideline. The dose of cells was divided into four groups: less than 25 × 10 6 (low), 25–50 × 10 6 (medium), more than 50 × 10 6 (high), and cases with no dose reported. An extensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and other sources up to September 2025. Randomized, phase I/II, and quasi‐experimental clinical trial studies that used UC‐MSCs in human patients with osteoarthritis were included in the analysis. Cochrane RoB and ROBINS‐I tools were used to assess the quality of studies, and statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Results Of the 1427 identified articles, 8 studies with a total of 688 participants were finally included in the systematic review and meta‐analysis. Although the analysis indicated that intra‐articular injections of UC‐MSCs reduced pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]) at both 6 months (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −0.86; 95% CI: −2.41 to 0.69; p = 0.28) and 12 months (SMD: −1.02; 95% CI: −2.62 to 0.58; p = 0.21), the observed reductions were not statistically significant. Notably, a subgroup analysis revealed that administration of a low‐dose UC‐MSC formulation resulted in a statistically significant reduction in pain scores at both 6 and 12 months ( p ≤ 0.0001). In addition, there was also an improvement in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score at 6 months (SMD: −25.81; 95% CI: −45.15 to −6.46; p = 0.009) compared to control. Compared to high‐dose groups or control interventions (e.g., hyaluronic acid or placebo), low and medium doses (less than 25 × 10 6 and 25–50 × 10 6 million cells) demonstrated a superior efficacy. No serious treatment‐related adverse events were reported, and the adverse events were mild, transient, and manageable. Conclusion UC‐MSC treatment in patients with knee osteoarthritis is a safe and effective method for improving pain and motor function, and it represents a promising alternative to traditional treatments. Given the promising results of this study, further prospective studies with a standardized design and economic evaluations are recommended to enable wider clinical application of this method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cells InternationalSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207