Cochrane · systematic review · CD010747
Autologous cells derived from different sources and administered using different regimens for 'no‐option' critical lower limb ischaemia patients
Abdul Wahid, SF, Ismail, NA, Wan Jamaludin, WF, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
VascularAMSTAR 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
24
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
4
Included studies
NR
No studies 4 · 16.7%Ungraded 5 · 20.8%Very low 3 · 12.5%Low 9 · 37.5%Moderate 3 · 12.5%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
BM‐MNCs compared to mPBSCs for critical lower limb ischaemia
Population: people with critical lower limb ischaemia
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Assessed during in‐patient stay BM‐MNCs vs mPBSCs | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 202 participants | Ungraded |
Amputation rate Assessed during in‐patient stay BM‐MNCs vs mPBSCs | RR 1.54 [0.45, 5.24] | 1 study · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Wound/ulcer healing: number of participants with healing ulcers Assessed during in‐patient stay BM‐MNCs vs mPBSCs | RR 0.89 [0.44, 1.83] | 1 study · 49 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Reduction in rest pain: number of participants with any reduction in rest pain score Assessed during in‐patient stay BM‐MNCs vs mPBSCs | RR 0.99 [0.93, 1.06] | 1 study · 104 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Improvement in lower limb perfusion: number of participants with increased ABI Assessed at 4 weeks BM‐MNCs vs mPBSCs | RR 1 [0.71, 1.4] | 1 study · 104 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Improvement in lower limb perfusion: TcO₂ reading in mmHg BM‐MNCs vs mPBSCs | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
BM‐MNCs compared to BM‐MSCs for critical lower limb ischaemia
Population: people with critical lower limb ischaemia
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Assessed during in‐patient stay BM‐MNCs vs BM‐MSCs | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
Amputation rate Assessed during in‐patient stay BM‐MNCs vs BM‐MSCs | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
Wound/ulcer healing: number of participants with healing ulcers BM‐MNCs vs BM‐MSCs | RR 2 [1.02, 3.92] | 1 study · 22 participants | Moderate |
Reduction in rest pain: rest pain score BM‐MNCs vs BM‐MSCs | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 37 participants | Moderate |
Improvement in lower limb perfusion: ABI score BM‐MNCs vs BM‐MSCs | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 37 participants | Low |
Improvement in lower limb perfusion: TcO₂ reading in mmHg BM‐MNCs vs BM‐MSCs | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 37 participants | Low |
High cell dose compared to low cell dose for critical lower limb ischaemia
Population: people with critical lower limb ischaemia
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Assessed during in‐patient stay High cell dose vs low cell dose | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 16 participants | Ungraded |
Amputation rate Assessed during in‐patient stay (Losordo 2012) High cell dose vs low cell dose | RR 3.21 [0.87, 11.9] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Wound ulcer healing High cell dose vs low cell dose | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reduction in rest pain High cell dose vs low cell dose | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Improvement in lower limb perfusion: ABI High cell dose vs low cell dose | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Improvement in lower limb perfusion: TcO₂ High cell dose vs low cell dose | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
IM injection compared to IA injection for critical lower limb ischaemia
Population: people with critical lower limb ischaemia
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Assessed during in‐patient stay IM injection vs IA injection | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 95 participants | Ungraded |
Amputation rate Assessed during in‐patient stay IM injection vs IA injection | RR 0.8 [0.54, 1.18] | 3 studies · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Wound/ulcer healing: number of participants with healing ulcer IM injection vs IA injection | RR 1.13 [0.73, 1.76] | 1 study · 41 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reduction in rest pain: number of participants with reduction in rest pain score IM injection vs IA injection | RR 1.22 [0.91, 1.64] | 1 study · 32 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Improvement in lower limb perfusion: number of participants with increased ABI IM injection vs IA injection | RR 0.93 [0.43, 2] | 1 study · 35 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Improvement in lower limb perfusion: number of participants with improved TcO₂ reading IM injection vs IA injection | RR 1.22 [0.86, 1.72] | 2 studies · 62 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |