Table 4.

Characteristics of studies that compared MSCI with other cartilage treatments.

Study	Year	Study design	Area	Number of patients	FU	Age Mean, range (yr)	Gender Male/female	Locations	Assessments	Brief description
Nejadnik et al. [38]	2010	CS	USA	MSCI: 36 ACI: 36	2 yr	44 42.5	18/18 20/16	Knee	IKDC, ICRS, TAS SF-36, and Lysholm	There was significant improvement in the patients' quality of life after cartilage repair in both groups. However, there was no difference between the MSCI and the ACI group in terms of clinical outcomes except for Physical Role Functioning, with a greater improvement over time in the MSCI group.
Lee et al. [39]	2012	CS	Singapore	MSCI: 35 MF: 35	Mean, 24.5 mo.	44 44	16/19 20/15	Knee	ICRS, IKDC, MRI, VAS, and Lysholm	There were no clinically significant adverse events reported through the course of the study. Both groups showed significant improvement in all scores. No significant difference in improvement between the two groups.
Yamasaki et al. [40]	2014	CS	Japan	MSCI: 12 Cell-free control: 12	Mean, 16 mo.	63, 49–70	15/9	Knee	HSS	Both groups showed significant improvement in HSS scores. The difference in clinical improvement between the groups was not significant, the arthroscopic and histological grading score was better in the cell-transplanted group than in the cell-free control group.
Gobbi et al. [41]	2015	CS	Italy	MCSI: 18 MACT: 19	3 yr	45.5 43.1	10/8 9/10	Patellae	IKDC, KOOS, TAS, and VAS	Both groups showed significant improvement in all scores, but there was no significant difference in improvement between the two groups, except for the IKDC subjective score, which favored the MSCI group.

FU: follow-up; CS: cohort study; ICRS: International Cartilage Repair score; HSS: Hospital for Special Surgery score; IKDC: International Knee Documentation Committee; SF-36: Short-Form-36 Health Survey; VAS: Visual Analogue scale; TAS: Tegner Activity Score; MF: microfracture; KOOS: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; MSCI: mesenchymal stem cell implantation.