A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Comparative Efficacy of Stem Cells Therapy for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Healing

• Published in: International journal of lower extremity wounds p. 15347346241286216
• Main Authors: Mudgal, Shiv Kumar, Kumar, Subodh, Sharma, Suresh K, Gaur, Rakhi, Saikia, Dibyajyoti, Singh, Harminder, Varshney, Saurabh, Grover, Ashoo, Varikasuvu, Seshadri Reddy
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 23.09.2024
• Subjects: effectiveness; diabetes mellitus; diabetic foot ulcer; network meta-analysis; stem cells therapy
• ISSN: 1552-6941
• DOI: 10.1177/15347346241286216

Stem cell therapy in diabetic foot ulcer has emerged as a promising treatment option to promote ulcer healing. This network meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate how they compete with each other and their ranking with respect to chances of ulcer healing. A systematic search strategy to retrieve data from five databases, were used to identify potential studies. Randomized controlled trial or clinical controlled trial, published in English, using any type of stem cells as intervention in individuals aged over 18 years diagnosed with diabetic foot ulcers were included. This network meta-analysis was performed using frequentist method using R version 4.2.1. Eighteen clinical trials were included in the study which included 13 interventions. The study found that most of the stem cells were significantly promoting ulcer healing chances with human viable wound matrix (hVWM) [RR 2.91; CI: 1.28, 6.64], peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNC) [RR 2.35; CI: 1.21, 4.55], bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSCs) [RR 2.20; CI: 1.34, 3.60], were top three stem cell options among all. P score also suggested the same. Risk of bias study suggested that there was "some concern or "high risk'' among majority of studies. It is evident from this study that bone marrow mononuclear cells were found to be most effective in wound healing in cases of diabetic foot ulcer in that order. Though there was no significant difference between these and more studies were required to ascertain whether they differ in term of efficacy for the clinical outcome of ulcer healing.