↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells on locomotor recovery in animal models of traumatic brain injury

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells on locomotor recovery in animal models of traumatic brain injury
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13287-015-0034-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weijun Peng, Jing Sun, Chenxia Sheng, Zhe Wang, Yang Wang, Chunhu Zhang, Rong Fan

Abstract

The therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is attractive. Conducting systematic review and meta-analyses based on data from animal studies can be used to inform clinical trial design. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to (i) systematically review the literatures describing the effect of MSCs therapy in animal models of TBI, (ii) determine the estimated effect size of functional locomotor recovery after experimental TBI, and(iii) to provide empirical evidence of biological factors associated with greater efficacy. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science and hand searched related references. Studies were selected if they reported the efficacy of MSCs in animal models of TBI. Two investigators independently assessed the identified studies. We extracted the details of individual study characteristics from each publication, assessed study quality, evaluated the effect sizes of MSCs treatment, and performed stratified meta-analysis and meta-regression, to assess the influence of study design on the estimated effect size. The presence of small effect sizes was investigated using funnel plots and Egger's tests. Twenty-eight eligible controlled studies were identified. The study quality was modest. Between-study heterogeneity was large. Meta-analysis showed that MSCs exert statistically significant positive effects on sensorimotor and neurological motor function. For sensorimotor function, maximum effect size in studies with a quality score of 5 was found in the weight-drop impact injury TBI model established in male SD rats, to which syngeneic umbilical cord-derived MSCs intracerebrally at cell dose of (1-5) x10(6) was administered r 6 hours following TBI, using ketamine as anesthetic agent. For neurological motor function, effect size was maximum for studies with a quality score of 5, in which the weight-drop impact injury TBI models of the female Wistar rats were adopted, with administration syngeneic bone marrow-derived MSCs intravenously at cell dose of 5 x10(6) at 2 months after TBI, using sevofluorane as anesthetic agent. We conclude that MSCs therapy may improve locomotor recovery after TBI. However, additional well-designed and well-reported animal studies are needed to guide further clinical studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 27%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Master 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 29%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 24 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,952,277
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#679
of 2,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,858
of 263,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#23
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.