Research Status of the Safety and Efficacy of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in the Treatment of COVID-19-Related Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  1. Junwu Wang
  2. Pengzhi Shi
  3. Dong Chen
  4. Shuguang Wang
  5. Pingchuan Wang
  6. Xinmin Feng
  7. Liang Zhang

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1089/scd.2021.0179
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.01.21259838: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomization2.2 Eligibility Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), clinically controlled studies (CCT), retrospective studies, case reports, letters (with valid data), and case series that evaluated the safety and/or efficacy of MSCs administered to adult patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia from any cause.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Since COVID-19 was first reported in Wuhan China and subsequently confirmed [17,18], we searched for articles published between October 2019 and April 2021 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WAN FANG, and CNKI databases.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.5 Limitations: Towards the end of this project, there are still not many clinical reports on MSCs for the treatment of COVID-19. Therefore, the limitations of this systematic review include the lack of large-scale RCTs, and no canonical treatment program and evaluation standard for MSCs. There are differences in the source, dose, activity, frequency, and inoculation interval of the MSCs in the included studies. It is unknown whether these will affect the treatment effect. Moreover, there may exist selection bias and insufficient description of the evaluation in published results.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.01.21259838v1 on medRxiv