干细胞注射治疗膝关节骨关节炎。

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Samuel L Whittle, Renea V Johnston, Steve McDonald, Daniel Worthley, T Mark Campbell, Sheila Cyril, Tanay Bapna, Jason Zhang, Rachelle Buchbinder
{"title":"干细胞注射治疗膝关节骨关节炎。","authors":"Samuel L Whittle, Renea V Johnston, Steve McDonald, Daniel Worthley, T Mark Campbell, Sheila Cyril, Tanay Bapna, Jason Zhang, Rachelle Buchbinder","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD013342.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stem cells are specialised precursor cells that can replace aged or damaged cells and thereby maintain healthy tissue function. Stem cell therapy is increasingly used as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis, despite the lack of clarity around the mechanism by which stem cell therapy may slow down disease progression in osteoarthritis, and uncertainty regarding its benefits and harms.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of stem cell injections for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase on 15 September 2023, unrestricted by date or language of publication. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for relevant trial protocols and ongoing trials.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing stem cell injection with placebo injection, no treatment or usual care, glucocorticoid injection, other injections, exercise, drug therapy, surgical interventions, and supplements and complementary therapies in people with knee osteoarthritis.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary comparison was stem cell injection compared with placebo injection. The primary time point for pain, function and quality of life was three to six months, and the end of the trial period for participant-reported success, joint structure changes and adverse event outcomes. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, global assessment of success, radiographic joint progression, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We found 25 randomised trials (1341 participants) comparing stem cell injections with placebo injection (eight trials), no treatment or usual care (analgesia, weight loss and exercise) (two trials), glucocorticoid injection (one trial), hyaluronic acid injection (seven trials), platelet-rich plasma injections (two trials), oral acetaminophen (paracetamol) (one trial), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus physical therapy plus hyaluronic acid injection (one trial) and stem cell injection plus intra-articular co-intervention versus co-intervention alone (three trials) in people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Trials were predominantly small, with sample sizes ranging from 6 to 252 participants, with only two trials having more than 100 participants. The average age of participants across trials ranged from 51 to 66 years, and symptom duration varied from one to 10 years. Placebo-controlled trials were largely free from bias, while most trials without a placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection biases. Here, we limit reporting to the main comparison, stem cell injection versus placebo injection. Compared with placebo injection, stem cell injection may slightly improve pain and function up to six months after treatment. Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4.5 out of 10 points with placebo injection and 1.2 points better (2.5 points better to 0 points better) with stem cell injection (I<sup>2</sup> = 80%; 7 studies, 445 participants). Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 best function) was 46.3 points with placebo injection and 14.2 points better (25.3 points better to 3.1 points better) with stem cell injection (I<sup>2</sup> = 82%; 7 studies, 432 participants). We are uncertain whether stem cell injections improve quality of life or increase the number of people who report treatment success compared to placebo injection, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Mean quality of life was 45.3 points with placebo injection and 22.8 points better (18.0 points worse to 63.7 points better) with stem cell injection (I<sup>2</sup> = 96%; 2 studies, 288 participants) at up to six months follow-up. At the end of follow-up, 89/168 participants (530 per 1000) in the placebo injection group reported treatment success compared with 126/180 participants (683 per 1000) in the stem cell injection group (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 4 trials, 348 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low certainty for pain and function due to indirectness (as the source, method of preparation and dose of stem cells varied across studies), and suspected publication bias (up to three larger RCTs have been conducted but withdrawn prior to reporting of results). For quality of life and treatment success, we further downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to imprecision in addition to indirectness and suspected publication bias. We are uncertain of the potential harms associated with stem cell injection, as there were very low event rates for serious adverse events. At the end of follow-up, 5/219 participants (23 per 1000) in the placebo injection group experienced serious adverse events compared with 4/242 participants (16 per 1000) in the stem cell injection group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.64; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 7 trials, 461 participants) and there were no reported withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to indirectness, suspected publication bias and imprecision. Radiographic progression was not assessed in any of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Compared with placebo injections and based upon low-certainty evidence, stem cell injections for people with knee osteoarthritis may slightly improve pain and function. We are uncertain of the effects of stem cell injections on quality of life or the number who report treatment success. Although the putative benefits of stem cell therapies for osteoarthritis include potential regenerative effects on damaged tissues, particularly articular cartilage, we remain uncertain of the effect of stem cell injections on structural progression in the knee (measured by radiographic appearance). There is also uncertainty regarding the safety of stem cell injections. Serious adverse events were infrequently reported, although all invasive joint procedures (including injections) carry a small risk of septic arthritis. The risk of other important harms, including potential concerns related to the use of a therapy with the theoretical capacity to promote cell growth, or to the use of allogeneic cells, remains unknown.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"4 ","pages":"CD013342"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961299/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stem cell injections for osteoarthritis of the knee.\",\"authors\":\"Samuel L Whittle, Renea V Johnston, Steve McDonald, Daniel Worthley, T Mark Campbell, Sheila Cyril, Tanay Bapna, Jason Zhang, Rachelle Buchbinder\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD013342.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stem cells are specialised precursor cells that can replace aged or damaged cells and thereby maintain healthy tissue function. Stem cell therapy is increasingly used as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis, despite the lack of clarity around the mechanism by which stem cell therapy may slow down disease progression in osteoarthritis, and uncertainty regarding its benefits and harms.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of stem cell injections for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase on 15 September 2023, unrestricted by date or language of publication. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for relevant trial protocols and ongoing trials.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing stem cell injection with placebo injection, no treatment or usual care, glucocorticoid injection, other injections, exercise, drug therapy, surgical interventions, and supplements and complementary therapies in people with knee osteoarthritis.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary comparison was stem cell injection compared with placebo injection. The primary time point for pain, function and quality of life was three to six months, and the end of the trial period for participant-reported success, joint structure changes and adverse event outcomes. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, global assessment of success, radiographic joint progression, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We found 25 randomised trials (1341 participants) comparing stem cell injections with placebo injection (eight trials), no treatment or usual care (analgesia, weight loss and exercise) (two trials), glucocorticoid injection (one trial), hyaluronic acid injection (seven trials), platelet-rich plasma injections (two trials), oral acetaminophen (paracetamol) (one trial), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus physical therapy plus hyaluronic acid injection (one trial) and stem cell injection plus intra-articular co-intervention versus co-intervention alone (three trials) in people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Trials were predominantly small, with sample sizes ranging from 6 to 252 participants, with only two trials having more than 100 participants. The average age of participants across trials ranged from 51 to 66 years, and symptom duration varied from one to 10 years. Placebo-controlled trials were largely free from bias, while most trials without a placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection biases. Here, we limit reporting to the main comparison, stem cell injection versus placebo injection. Compared with placebo injection, stem cell injection may slightly improve pain and function up to six months after treatment. Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4.5 out of 10 points with placebo injection and 1.2 points better (2.5 points better to 0 points better) with stem cell injection (I<sup>2</sup> = 80%; 7 studies, 445 participants). Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 best function) was 46.3 points with placebo injection and 14.2 points better (25.3 points better to 3.1 points better) with stem cell injection (I<sup>2</sup> = 82%; 7 studies, 432 participants). We are uncertain whether stem cell injections improve quality of life or increase the number of people who report treatment success compared to placebo injection, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Mean quality of life was 45.3 points with placebo injection and 22.8 points better (18.0 points worse to 63.7 points better) with stem cell injection (I<sup>2</sup> = 96%; 2 studies, 288 participants) at up to six months follow-up. At the end of follow-up, 89/168 participants (530 per 1000) in the placebo injection group reported treatment success compared with 126/180 participants (683 per 1000) in the stem cell injection group (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 4 trials, 348 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low certainty for pain and function due to indirectness (as the source, method of preparation and dose of stem cells varied across studies), and suspected publication bias (up to three larger RCTs have been conducted but withdrawn prior to reporting of results). For quality of life and treatment success, we further downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to imprecision in addition to indirectness and suspected publication bias. We are uncertain of the potential harms associated with stem cell injection, as there were very low event rates for serious adverse events. At the end of follow-up, 5/219 participants (23 per 1000) in the placebo injection group experienced serious adverse events compared with 4/242 participants (16 per 1000) in the stem cell injection group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.64; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 7 trials, 461 participants) and there were no reported withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to indirectness, suspected publication bias and imprecision. Radiographic progression was not assessed in any of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Compared with placebo injections and based upon low-certainty evidence, stem cell injections for people with knee osteoarthritis may slightly improve pain and function. We are uncertain of the effects of stem cell injections on quality of life or the number who report treatment success. Although the putative benefits of stem cell therapies for osteoarthritis include potential regenerative effects on damaged tissues, particularly articular cartilage, we remain uncertain of the effect of stem cell injections on structural progression in the knee (measured by radiographic appearance). There is also uncertainty regarding the safety of stem cell injections. Serious adverse events were infrequently reported, although all invasive joint procedures (including injections) carry a small risk of septic arthritis. The risk of other important harms, including potential concerns related to the use of a therapy with the theoretical capacity to promote cell growth, or to the use of allogeneic cells, remains unknown.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"CD013342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961299/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013342.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013342.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:干细胞是特化的前体细胞,可以替代老化或受损的细胞,从而维持健康的组织功能。干细胞疗法越来越多地被用作膝关节骨关节炎的治疗方法,尽管干细胞疗法可能减缓骨关节炎疾病进展的机制尚不清楚,其利弊也不确定。目的:评估干细胞注射对膝关节骨性关节炎患者的益处和危害。第二个目标是保持证据的流通,使用一个活生生的系统评价方法。检索方法:我们于2023年9月15日检索了Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central)、MEDLINE和Embase,不受发表日期或语言的限制。我们还检索了ClinicalTrials.gov和WHO国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)的相关试验方案和正在进行的试验。选择标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(rct),或采用准随机方法分配参与者的试验,比较干细胞注射与安慰剂注射、无治疗或常规护理、糖皮质激素注射、其他注射、运动、药物治疗、手术干预以及膝关节骨关节炎患者的补充和补充疗法。数据收集和分析:两位综述作者选择纳入研究,提取试验特征和结局数据,评估偏倚风险,并使用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。主要的比较是干细胞注射与安慰剂注射的比较。疼痛、功能和生活质量的主要时间点为3至6个月,参与者报告的成功、关节结构变化和不良事件结局的试验结束。主要结局包括疼痛、功能、生活质量、总体成功评估、关节影像学进展、因不良事件和严重不良事件而退出治疗。主要结果:我们找到了25个随机试验(1341名参与者),比较干细胞注射与安慰剂注射(8项试验)、不治疗或常规护理(镇痛、减肥和运动)(2项试验)、糖皮质激素注射(1项试验)、透明质酸注射(7项试验)、富血小板血浆注射(2项试验)、口服对乙酰氨基酚(扑热息痛)(1项试验)、非甾体抗炎药加物理治疗加透明质酸注射(1项试验)和干细胞注射加关节内联合干预与单独联合干预(3项试验)对膝关节骨关节炎患者的影响。试验主要是小规模的,样本量从6到252人不等,只有两个试验的参与者超过100人。试验参与者的平均年龄从51岁到66岁不等,症状持续时间从1年到10年不等。安慰剂对照试验基本上没有偏倚,而大多数没有安慰剂对照的试验容易受到表现和检测偏倚的影响。在这里,我们将报道限制在干细胞注射与安慰剂注射的主要比较上。与安慰剂注射相比,干细胞注射可能在治疗后6个月内轻微改善疼痛和功能。平均疼痛(0至10分,0无疼痛)安慰剂注射组为4.5分(满分10分),干细胞注射组为1.2分(好2.5分至好0分)(I2 = 80%;7项研究,445名参与者)。安慰剂注射组的平均功能(0至100分,0最佳功能)为46.3分,干细胞注射组为14.2分(25.3分至3.1分)(I2 = 82%;7项研究,432名参与者)。与安慰剂注射相比,我们不确定干细胞注射是否改善了生活质量或增加了报告治疗成功的人数,因为证据的确定性非常低。注射安慰剂组的平均生活质量为45.3分,注射干细胞组的平均生活质量为22.8分(差18.0分至63.7分)(I2 = 96%;2项研究,288名参与者)长达6个月的随访。随访结束时,安慰剂注射组的89/168名参与者(530 / 1000)报告治疗成功,而干细胞注射组的126/180名参与者(683 / 1000)报告治疗成功(风险比(RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.10至1.53;I2 = 0%;4项试验,348名受试者)。由于间接性(因为干细胞的来源、制备方法和剂量在不同的研究中有所不同)和疑似发表偏倚(已经进行了多达三个较大的随机对照试验,但在报告结果之前被撤回),我们将疼痛和功能的证据降级为低确定性。对于生活质量和治疗成功,由于不精确、间接性和疑似发表偏倚,我们进一步将证据的确定性降至非常低。 我们不确定与干细胞注射相关的潜在危害,因为严重不良事件的发生率非常低。随访结束时,安慰剂注射组有5/219名参与者(23 / 1000)出现严重不良事件,而干细胞注射组有4/242名参与者(16 / 1000)出现严重不良事件(RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20至2.64;I2 = 0%;7项试验,461名受试者),没有因不良事件而停药的报道。由于间接、可疑的发表偏倚和不精确,我们将证据的确定性降至非常低。所有纳入的研究均未评估影像学进展。作者的结论是:与安慰剂注射相比,基于低确定性的证据,干细胞注射对膝关节骨关节炎患者可能会轻微改善疼痛和功能。我们不确定干细胞注射对生活质量的影响,也不确定报告治疗成功的人数。尽管干细胞治疗骨关节炎的益处包括对受损组织,特别是关节软骨的潜在再生作用,但我们仍然不确定干细胞注射对膝关节结构进展的影响(通过x线片外观测量)。干细胞注射的安全性也存在不确定性。严重的不良事件很少报道,尽管所有侵入性关节手术(包括注射)都有脓毒性关节炎的小风险。其他重要危害的风险,包括与使用理论上具有促进细胞生长能力的疗法或使用同种异体细胞有关的潜在问题,仍是未知的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stem cell injections for osteoarthritis of the knee.

Background: Stem cells are specialised precursor cells that can replace aged or damaged cells and thereby maintain healthy tissue function. Stem cell therapy is increasingly used as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis, despite the lack of clarity around the mechanism by which stem cell therapy may slow down disease progression in osteoarthritis, and uncertainty regarding its benefits and harms.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of stem cell injections for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase on 15 September 2023, unrestricted by date or language of publication. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for relevant trial protocols and ongoing trials.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing stem cell injection with placebo injection, no treatment or usual care, glucocorticoid injection, other injections, exercise, drug therapy, surgical interventions, and supplements and complementary therapies in people with knee osteoarthritis.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary comparison was stem cell injection compared with placebo injection. The primary time point for pain, function and quality of life was three to six months, and the end of the trial period for participant-reported success, joint structure changes and adverse event outcomes. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, global assessment of success, radiographic joint progression, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events.

Main results: We found 25 randomised trials (1341 participants) comparing stem cell injections with placebo injection (eight trials), no treatment or usual care (analgesia, weight loss and exercise) (two trials), glucocorticoid injection (one trial), hyaluronic acid injection (seven trials), platelet-rich plasma injections (two trials), oral acetaminophen (paracetamol) (one trial), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus physical therapy plus hyaluronic acid injection (one trial) and stem cell injection plus intra-articular co-intervention versus co-intervention alone (three trials) in people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Trials were predominantly small, with sample sizes ranging from 6 to 252 participants, with only two trials having more than 100 participants. The average age of participants across trials ranged from 51 to 66 years, and symptom duration varied from one to 10 years. Placebo-controlled trials were largely free from bias, while most trials without a placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection biases. Here, we limit reporting to the main comparison, stem cell injection versus placebo injection. Compared with placebo injection, stem cell injection may slightly improve pain and function up to six months after treatment. Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4.5 out of 10 points with placebo injection and 1.2 points better (2.5 points better to 0 points better) with stem cell injection (I2 = 80%; 7 studies, 445 participants). Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 best function) was 46.3 points with placebo injection and 14.2 points better (25.3 points better to 3.1 points better) with stem cell injection (I2 = 82%; 7 studies, 432 participants). We are uncertain whether stem cell injections improve quality of life or increase the number of people who report treatment success compared to placebo injection, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Mean quality of life was 45.3 points with placebo injection and 22.8 points better (18.0 points worse to 63.7 points better) with stem cell injection (I2 = 96%; 2 studies, 288 participants) at up to six months follow-up. At the end of follow-up, 89/168 participants (530 per 1000) in the placebo injection group reported treatment success compared with 126/180 participants (683 per 1000) in the stem cell injection group (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 348 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low certainty for pain and function due to indirectness (as the source, method of preparation and dose of stem cells varied across studies), and suspected publication bias (up to three larger RCTs have been conducted but withdrawn prior to reporting of results). For quality of life and treatment success, we further downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to imprecision in addition to indirectness and suspected publication bias. We are uncertain of the potential harms associated with stem cell injection, as there were very low event rates for serious adverse events. At the end of follow-up, 5/219 participants (23 per 1000) in the placebo injection group experienced serious adverse events compared with 4/242 participants (16 per 1000) in the stem cell injection group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.64; I2 = 0%; 7 trials, 461 participants) and there were no reported withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to indirectness, suspected publication bias and imprecision. Radiographic progression was not assessed in any of the included studies.

Authors' conclusions: Compared with placebo injections and based upon low-certainty evidence, stem cell injections for people with knee osteoarthritis may slightly improve pain and function. We are uncertain of the effects of stem cell injections on quality of life or the number who report treatment success. Although the putative benefits of stem cell therapies for osteoarthritis include potential regenerative effects on damaged tissues, particularly articular cartilage, we remain uncertain of the effect of stem cell injections on structural progression in the knee (measured by radiographic appearance). There is also uncertainty regarding the safety of stem cell injections. Serious adverse events were infrequently reported, although all invasive joint procedures (including injections) carry a small risk of septic arthritis. The risk of other important harms, including potential concerns related to the use of a therapy with the theoretical capacity to promote cell growth, or to the use of allogeneic cells, remains unknown.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信