Evidence Hub

Efficacy of MSC-derived small extracellular vesicles in treating type II diabetic cutaneous wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal models

Guangren Yue, Yu Li, Zheng Liu, Shuying Yu, Yilin Cao, Ximei Wang

Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2024

11 citations

Abstract

Background Small extracellular vesicles derived from mesenchymal stem cells (MSC-sEVs) have emerged as a promising therapy for treating type II diabetic cutaneous wounds. Currently, the evidence supporting the use of MSC-sEVs for treating diabetic skin wounds remains inconclusive and is limited to preclinical studies. To facilitate the clinical translation of cell-free therapy, conducting a comprehensive systematic review of preclinical studies assessing the efficacy of MSC-sEVs is imperative. Methods A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until June 14, 2023, to identify studies that met our pre-established inclusion criteria. The outcome indicators comprised wound closure rate (primary outcome), neovascular density, re-epithelialization rate, collagen deposition, and inflammatory factors (secondary Outcomes). A fixed-effects model was employed in instances of low heterogeneity (I2<50%), while a random-effects model was utilized for high heterogeneity (I2≥50%). The risk of bias in animal studies was assessed using the SYRCLE tool. Results Twenty-one studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, MSC-sEVs were found to significantly facilitate the healing of cutaneous wounds in type II diabetic patients (standardized mean difference [SMD]=3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.65 to 3.66, P<0.00001, I2 = 39%). Conclusions According to the meta-analysis of preclinical studies, MSC-sEVs…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free