Fixed-effect or random-effect models? A methodological reappraisal of subgroup analyses in mesenchymal stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis.

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING
Shanshan Wu
{"title":"Fixed-effect or random-effect models? A methodological reappraisal of subgroup analyses in mesenchymal stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis.","authors":"Shanshan Wu","doi":"10.1186/s13287-025-04650-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We commend Cao et al. for their systematic review demonstrating the efficacy of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy in alleviating pain and improving function in patients with non-surgical knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, we reanalyzed their subgroup analyses to evaluate the methodological implications of statistical model selection (fixed-effect vs. random-effect models) on result reliability. In dose-stratified analyses, Cao et al. applied fixed-effect models to low-dose (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and high-dose (I<sup>2</sup> = 80%) MSC subgroups. Upon reanalysis using random-effect models, the high-dose group showed no statistically significant differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores compared to the control group at 6 months [MD = 8.75; 95% CI (-2.10, 19.61); P = 0.11] or 12 months [MD = 12.68; 95% CI (-4.96, 30.32); P = 0.16], contrasting with Cao et al.'s original findings. The low-dose subgroup, with no heterogeneity, yielded identical results across both models. Similarly, in cell-source stratification (adipose-derived MSCs [ADMSCs] vs. bone marrow-derived MSCs [BM-MSCs]), reanalysis of ADMSCs using random-effect models demonstrated significant 6-month WOMAC improvement [MD = 9.32; 95% CI (3.73, 14.92); P = 0.001] but non-significant 12-month differences [MD = 12.90; 95% CI (-1.76, 27.55); P = 0.08], diverging from Cao et al.'s conclusions. BM-MSCs results remained consistent due to negligible heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). These findings underscore that fixed-effect models artificially narrow confidence intervals in heterogeneous populations, overestimating clinical significance. Our results align with Cochrane guidelines, emphasizing that random-effect models better accommodate inter-study diversity, yielding conservative and clinically generalizable estimates. This critique reinforces the necessity of transparent statistical model selection in meta-analyses, particularly when subgroup heterogeneity may influence therapeutic interpretations.</p>","PeriodicalId":21876,"journal":{"name":"Stem Cell Research & Therapy","volume":"16 1","pages":"572"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535084/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stem Cell Research & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-025-04650-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We commend Cao et al. for their systematic review demonstrating the efficacy of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy in alleviating pain and improving function in patients with non-surgical knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, we reanalyzed their subgroup analyses to evaluate the methodological implications of statistical model selection (fixed-effect vs. random-effect models) on result reliability. In dose-stratified analyses, Cao et al. applied fixed-effect models to low-dose (I2 = 0%) and high-dose (I2 = 80%) MSC subgroups. Upon reanalysis using random-effect models, the high-dose group showed no statistically significant differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores compared to the control group at 6 months [MD = 8.75; 95% CI (-2.10, 19.61); P = 0.11] or 12 months [MD = 12.68; 95% CI (-4.96, 30.32); P = 0.16], contrasting with Cao et al.'s original findings. The low-dose subgroup, with no heterogeneity, yielded identical results across both models. Similarly, in cell-source stratification (adipose-derived MSCs [ADMSCs] vs. bone marrow-derived MSCs [BM-MSCs]), reanalysis of ADMSCs using random-effect models demonstrated significant 6-month WOMAC improvement [MD = 9.32; 95% CI (3.73, 14.92); P = 0.001] but non-significant 12-month differences [MD = 12.90; 95% CI (-1.76, 27.55); P = 0.08], diverging from Cao et al.'s conclusions. BM-MSCs results remained consistent due to negligible heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). These findings underscore that fixed-effect models artificially narrow confidence intervals in heterogeneous populations, overestimating clinical significance. Our results align with Cochrane guidelines, emphasizing that random-effect models better accommodate inter-study diversity, yielding conservative and clinically generalizable estimates. This critique reinforces the necessity of transparent statistical model selection in meta-analyses, particularly when subgroup heterogeneity may influence therapeutic interpretations.

固定效应模型还是随机效应模型?对间充质干细胞治疗膝关节骨关节炎亚组分析的方法学重新评估。
我们赞扬Cao等人的系统综述,该综述证明了关节内间充质干细胞(MSC)治疗在缓解非手术性膝骨关节炎(OA)患者疼痛和改善功能方面的疗效。然而,我们重新分析了他们的亚组分析,以评估统计模型选择(固定效应与随机效应模型)对结果可靠性的方法学意义。在剂量分层分析中,Cao等人将固定效应模型应用于低剂量(I2 = 0%)和高剂量(I2 = 80%) MSC亚组。在随机效应模型的再分析中,高剂量组在6个月时的西安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)总分与对照组相比无统计学差异[MD = 8.75;95% ci (-2.10, 19.61);P = 0.11]或12个月[MD = 12.68;95% ci (-4.96, 30.32);P = 0.16],与Cao等人的原始研究结果对比。低剂量亚组,没有异质性,在两个模型中产生相同的结果。同样,在细胞源分层(脂肪来源的MSCs [ADMSCs]与骨髓来源的MSCs [BM-MSCs])中,使用随机效应模型重新分析ADMSCs显示6个月的WOMAC显著改善[MD = 9.32;95% ci (3.73, 14.92);P = 0.001]但12个月差异不显著[MD = 12.90;95% ci (-1.76, 27.55);P = 0.08],与Cao等人的结论不同。由于可忽略的异质性(I2 = 0%), BM-MSCs的结果保持一致。这些发现强调,固定效应模型人为地缩小了异质人群的置信区间,高估了临床意义。我们的结果与Cochrane指南一致,强调随机效应模型更好地适应研究间的多样性,得出保守的和临床可推广的估计。这一批评强调了在荟萃分析中透明统计模型选择的必要性,特别是当亚组异质性可能影响治疗解释时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Stem Cell Research & Therapy
Stem Cell Research & Therapy CELL BIOLOGY-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
8.00%
发文量
525
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Stem Cell Research & Therapy serves as a leading platform for translational research in stem cell therapies. This international, peer-reviewed journal publishes high-quality open-access research articles, with a focus on basic, translational, and clinical research in stem cell therapeutics and regenerative therapies. Coverage includes animal models and clinical trials. Additionally, the journal offers reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, and reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信