Cochrane · systematic review · CD007231
Stem cell transplantation for ischemic stroke
Boncoraglio, GB, Ranieri, M, Bersano, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
StrokeAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 33.3%Low 4 · 66.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Stem cell transplantation compared to conventional treatments for ischemic stroke
Population: ischemic stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Neurologic impairment (measured by NIHSS; 0 to 42; higher = worse) Stem cell transplantation vs conventional treatments | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 319 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Disability (measured by mRS; 0 to 6; higher = worse) Stem cell transplantation vs conventional treatments | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 371 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Dependency (measured by BI; 0 to 100; higher = better) Stem cell transplantation vs conventional treatments | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 170 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Any cause of death Stem cell transplantation vs conventional treatments | RR 0.66 [0.39, 1.14] | 6 studies · 371 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severe worsening of neurological deficit Stem cell transplantation vs conventional treatments | RR 1.39 | 4 studies · 321 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Infections Stem cell transplantation vs conventional treatments | RR 0.8 [0.54, 1.17] | 4 studies · 321 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |