21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Olfactory Ensheathing Cell Transplantation in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury: Effect size and Reporting Bias of 62 Experimental Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Olfactory ensheathing cell (OEC) transplantation is a candidate cellular treatment approach for human spinal cord injury (SCI) due to their unique regenerative potential and autologous origin. The objective of this study was, through a meta-epidemiologic approach, (i) to assess the efficacy of OEC transplantation on locomotor recovery after traumatic experimental SCI and (ii) to estimate the likelihood of reporting bias and/or missing data. A study protocol was finalized before data collection. Embedded into a systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted a literature research of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science from 1949/01 to 2014/10 with no language restrictions, screened by two independent investigators. Studies were included if they assessed neurobehavioral improvement after traumatic experimental SCI, administrated no combined interventions, and reported the number of animals in the treatment and control group. Individual effect sizes were pooled using a random effects model. Details regarding the study design were extracted and impact of these on locomotor outcome was assessed by meta-regression. Missing data (reporting bias) was determined by Egger regression and Funnel-plotting. The primary study outcome assessed was improvement in locomotor function at the final time point of measurement. We included 49 studies (62 experiments, 1,164 animals) in the final analysis. The overall improvement in locomotor function after OEC transplantation, measured using the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) score, was 20.3% (95% CI 17.8-29.5). One missing study was imputed by trim and fill analysis, suggesting only slight publication bias and reducing the overall effect to a 19.2% improvement of locomotor activity. Dose-response ratio supports neurobiological plausibility. Studies were assessed using a 9-point item quality score, resulting in a median score of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-5). In conclusion, OEC transplantation exerts considerable beneficial effects on neurobehavioral recovery after traumatic experimental SCI. Publication bias was minimal and affirms the translational potential of efficacy, but safety cannot be adequately assessed. The data justify OECs as a cellular substrate to develop and optimize minimally invasive and safe cellular transplantation paradigms for the lesioned spinal cord embedded into state-of-the-art Phase I/II clinical trial design studies for human SCI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          p-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results.

          Journals tend to publish only statistically significant evidence, creating a scientific record that markedly overstates the size of effects. We provide a new tool that corrects for this bias without requiring access to nonsignificant results. It capitalizes on the fact that the distribution of significant p values, p-curve, is a function of the true underlying effect. Researchers armed only with sample sizes and test results of the published findings can correct for publication bias. We validate the technique with simulations and by reanalyzing data from the Many-Labs Replication project. We demonstrate that p-curve can arrive at conclusions opposite that of existing tools by reanalyzing the meta-analysis of the "choice overload" literature.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide.

            Meta-analyses of data from human studies are invaluable resources in the life sciences and the methods to conduct these are well documented. Similarly there are a number of benefits in conducting meta-analyses on data from animal studies; they can be used to inform clinical trial design, or to try and explain discrepancies between preclinical and clinical trial results. However there are inherit differences between animal and human studies and so applying the same techniques for the meta-analysis of preclinical data is not straightforward. For example preclinical studies are frequently small and there is often substantial heterogeneity between studies. This may have an impact on both the method of calculating an effect size and the method of pooling data. Here we describe a practical guide for the meta-analysis of data from animal studies including methods used to explore sources of heterogeneity. Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of cellular transplantation therapies for spinal cord injury.

              Cell transplantation therapies have become a major focus in pre-clinical research as a promising strategy for the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). In this article, we systematically review the available pre-clinical literature on the most commonly used cell types in order to assess the body of evidence that may support their translation to human SCI patients. These cell types include Schwann cells, olfactory ensheathing glial cells, embryonic and adult neural stem/progenitor cells, fate-restricted neural/glial precursor cells, and bone-marrow stromal cells. Studies were included for review only if they described the transplantation of the cell substrate into an in-vivo model of traumatic SCI, induced either bluntly or sharply. Using these inclusion criteria, 162 studies were identified and reviewed in detail, emphasizing their behavioral effects (although not limiting the scope of the discussion to behavioral effects alone). Significant differences between cells of the same "type" exist based on the species and age of donor, as well as culture conditions and mode of delivery. Many of these studies used cell transplantations in combination with other strategies. The systematic review makes it very apparent that cells derived from rodent sources have been the most extensively studied, while only 19 studies reported the transplantation of human cells, nine of which utilized bone-marrow stromal cells. Similarly, the vast majority of studies have been conducted in rodent models of injury, and few studies have investigated cell transplantation in larger mammals or primates. With respect to the timing of intervention, nearly all of the studies reviewed were conducted with transplantations occurring subacutely and acutely, while chronic treatments were rare and often failed to yield functional benefits.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                PLoS Biol.
                PLoS biology
                Public Library of Science (PLoS)
                1545-7885
                1544-9173
                May 2016
                : 14
                : 5
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
                [2 ] Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
                [3 ] Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
                [4 ] Stroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
                [5 ] F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, and Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States of America.
                [6 ] Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
                [7 ] German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Berlin site, Berlin, Germany.
                [8 ] University of Tasmania, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
                [9 ] Department of Neurology, Spinal Cord Injury Division, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, United States of America.
                [10 ] Department of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, United States of America.
                Article
                PBIOLOGY-D-15-03405
                10.1371/journal.pbio.1002468
                4886956
                27244556
                d606c9b9-07f0-4a0a-83ed-f19d9c6d5bc1
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article