Alba Guijarro-Belmar1,2, Anna Varone1, Martin Rugema Baltzer1, Saurav Kataria1, Ezgi Tanriver-Ayder3, Ralf Watzlawick4, Emily Sena3, Catriona J Cunningham1, Ann M Rajnicek1, Malcolm Macleod3, Wenlong Huang5, Gillian L Currie3, Sarah K McCann3,6. 1. School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 2. Sainsbury Wellcome Centre, University College London, London, W1T 4JG, UK. 3. Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Freiburg University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany. 5. School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. w.huang@abdn.ac.uk. 6. Berlin Institute of Health at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical literature. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of biomaterial-based combination (BMC) strategies for the treatment of Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), the effects of individual biomaterials in the context of BMC strategies, and the factors influencing their efficacy. To assess the effects of different preclinical testing paradigms in BMC strategies. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of Embase, Web of Science and PubMed. All controlled preclinical studies describing an in vivo or in vitro model of SCI that tested a biomaterial in combination with at least one other regenerative strategy (cells, drugs, or both) were included. Two review authors conducted the study selection independently, extracted study characteristics independently and assessed study quality using a modified CAMARADES checklist. Effect size measures were combined using random-effects models and heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression with tau2, I2 and R2 statistics. We tested for small-study effects using funnel plot-based methods. RESULTS: 134 publications were included, testing over 100 different BMC strategies. Overall, treatment with BMC therapies improved locomotor recovery by 25.3% (95% CI, 20.3-30.3; n = 102) and in vivo axonal regeneration by 1.6 SD (95% CI 1.2-2 SD; n = 117) in comparison with injury only controls. CONCLUSION: BMC strategies improve locomotor outcomes after experimental SCI. Our comprehensive study highlights gaps in current knowledge and provides a foundation for the design of future experiments.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical literature. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of biomaterial-based combination (BMC) strategies for the treatment of Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), the effects of individual biomaterials in the context of BMC strategies, and the factors influencing their efficacy. To assess the effects of different preclinical testing paradigms in BMC strategies. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of Embase, Web of Science and PubMed. All controlled preclinical studies describing an in vivo or in vitro model of SCI that tested a biomaterial in combination with at least one other regenerative strategy (cells, drugs, or both) were included. Two review authors conducted the study selection independently, extracted study characteristics independently and assessed study quality using a modified CAMARADES checklist. Effect size measures were combined using random-effects models and heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression with tau2, I2 and R2 statistics. We tested for small-study effects using funnel plot-based methods. RESULTS: 134 publications were included, testing over 100 different BMC strategies. Overall, treatment with BMC therapies improved locomotor recovery by 25.3% (95% CI, 20.3-30.3; n = 102) and in vivo axonal regeneration by 1.6 SD (95% CI 1.2-2 SD; n = 117) in comparison with injury only controls. CONCLUSION: BMC strategies improve locomotor outcomes after experimental SCI. Our comprehensive study highlights gaps in current knowledge and provides a foundation for the design of future experiments.