Group Therapy And The Screening Of Prospective - amazonia.fiocruz.br

Opinion you: Group Therapy And The Screening Of Prospective

Metrics details.

Background

Stem cell therapy provides great hope for patients with diabetes mellitus DM. Efficient novel therapeutic modalities to treat DM are indeed warranted. Stem cells SC derived from the umbilical cord specifically provide several advantages and unique characteristics being a readily available non-invasive source, with an additional credit for their banking potential. We employed a random-effects model and standardized mean difference for this meta-analysis.

Eleven eligible clinical studies were included; WJ-MSCs 6 studies; patients including 71 controls and UCB 5 studies; 74 patients including 15 controls. Diabetes mellitus DM is a terribly growing epidemic, currently affecting about million people worldwide, with expected rise to million by the year [ 1 ]. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to develop novel therapeutic modalities which would help not only to manage the disease, but also hopefully provide a real cure for DM.

Regenerative medicine and stem cell therapy opened new avenues and ignited much hope for patients with DM over the past few years [ 7 ]. Actually, more than couple of decades ago, stem cells were thought to have great therapeutic potential and to be the next frontier more info medicine. However, Group Therapy And The Screening Of Prospective ethical concerns surrounding embryonic stem cells ESCs represented a huge obstacle in the field of stem cell research [ 8 ]. This sparked much interest in exploring other https://amazonia.fiocruz.br/scdp/blog/culture-and-selfaeesteem/drug-policy-and-funding-has-not-changed.php sources for stem cells.

In fact, various types of stem cells have been investigated regarding their therapeutic potential for DM in Screenlng preclinical as well as clinical settings [ 9 ]. Interestingly, among the various sources of stem cells, the umbilical cord UC has proved to be a unique source, providing several advantages over other sources. Most importantly, UC-derived stem cells are readily available and can be obtained non-invasively during the process of delivery. Moreover, their banking potential adds a lot to their importance for regenerative medicine [ 1011 ].

Navigation menu

Basically, in the early s, the umbilical cord blood UCB was reported to be a rich source of hematopoietic stem cells HSCs [ 12 ]. It is noteworthy here that MSCs have made their mark as a potential article source in various regenerative medicine applications over the past years, and many of their exceptional characteristics such as immuno-modulatory effects, as well as differentiation potential down various lineages have been revealed [ 15 ].

In fact, several previous meta-analyses concluded the safety as well as therapeutic efficacy of stem cell therapy in DM. Accordingly, in the current study, we thought to carry out a rather focused meta-analysis to carefully assess the therapeutic efficacy of UC-derived stem Group Therapy And The Screening Of Prospective transplantation, namely WJ-MSCs and UCB, and compare their putative therapeutic potential and clinical outcome for both types of DM.

Get matched to the best counselor for you

To the best of our knowledge, this is the Group Therapy And The Screening Of Prospective study carried out to compare the clinical efficacy of these two UC-derived stem cells with banking potential in DM. This searching and screening was done on databases until the 26th of April The retrieved reports from all databases were downloaded to citation manager, which helped us to identify and exclude duplicates, as well as review articles and irrelevant reports. While searching, we did not specify any restrictions regarding the article type, and we also checked all relevant published meta-analyses and their reference lists.

Regarding randomized controlled trials, the therapeutic efficacy was assessed in subjects who received stem cell transplantation compared to those who did not receive such intervention as a control group. As for self-controlled studies, the clinical efficacy was assessed via comparing various parameters continue reading and after receiving SC therapy. We did not place an inclusion restriction based on the follow-up time after receiving the SC intervention.

Additionally, we excluded studies in which the subjects had any additional pathology besides DM. Flow diagram showing the screening and selection process of reports Screwning be included in the meta-analysis. Data extraction was independently done by the two authors according to a standardized specified strategy. For the selected studies, we reported clinical trial type i. We also collected data concerned with the type of DM, the type of UC-derived stem cells employed i. We initially did not place a Thdrapy on the follow-up time after receiving the SC intervention. Any data which required digitalization was done using the software Plot Digitizer. Regarding data which were presented as median minimum—maximum Group Therapy And The Screening Of Prospective median inter-quartile rangethe means and standard deviation were estimated for these studies, knowing their sample size, using the Excel sheet and equations published by Wan and co-workers [ 27 ].

The risk article source bias in the enrolled randomized controlled trials was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias evaluation tool RoB-2 [ 28 ], where low, unclear having some concernsor high degree of bias was assigned for each of the following: randomization process, deviation from intended intervention, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result.

The random-effects model takes into account the variability between studies and was therefore adequate for the purpose of this meta-analysis. The Q statistic indicates the presence or absence of heterogeneity among a set of studies related to differences in the measurements, whereas the I 2 index implies the degree of heterogeneity; observed values up to 30 imply mild heterogeneity, 31—50 imply moderate, Theapy more than 50 imply marked heterogeneity. Screenijg

It is noteworthy that we preferred to use the standardized mean difference rather than the mean difference in our meta-analysis to improve the homogeneity, since some studies were using different measurements for the specified outcome.]