↓ Skip to main content

Effects of mesenchymal stem cells on solid tumor metastasis in experimental cancer models: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Effects of mesenchymal stem cells on solid tumor metastasis in experimental cancer models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1484-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing-Huan Li, Wen-Shuai Fan, Mi-Mi Wang, Yan-Hong Wang, Zheng-Gang Ren

Abstract

It has been reported mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are recruited to and become integral parts of the tumor microenvironment. MSCs might have an active role in solid tumor progression, especially cancer metastasis. However, the contribution of MSCs in the process of cancer metastasis is still controversial. In this review, we performed a meta-analysis on the effects of MSCs administration on cancer metastasis based on published preclinical studies. The PRISMA guidelines were used. A total of 42 publications met the inclusion criteria. Outcome data on the incidence and the number of cancer metastasis as well as study characteristics were extracted. Quality of the studies was assessed according to SYRCLE Risk of Bias tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates. Of the 42 studies included, 32 reported that MSCs administration promoted outcome events (numbers or incidences of cancer metastasis), and 39 reported data suitable for meta-analysis. The median effect size (RR) was 2.04 for the incidence of cancer metastasis (95% CI 1.57-2.65, I2 = 21%), and the median effect size (SMD) was 1.23 for the number of cancer metastasis (95% CI 0.43-2.03, I2 = 89%). Heterogeneity was observed, with the greater impact based on study length and different ways of metastasis measurement and MSCs administration. Our results suggested MSCs administration increased the number and the incidence of cancer metastasis in experimental cancer models. High heterogeneity and poor reported risk of bias limit the quality of these findings. Further preclinical studies with better design and adequate reporting are still needed.

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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,483,282
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#3,349
of 4,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,458
of 326,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#70
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.