Table 4.

Examples of reported changes (mean±standard deviations, SD) of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) from baseline to follow-up (FUP) in the original publications (Roman style), compared with the re-calculated values in the publications of Jeevananthan et al.²⁰(Italic) and de Jong et al.² (underlined).

Intra-coronary cell injection study	Reported Changes in EF (%)	Reported Changes in EF (%)	Calculated Changes in EF (%)	Calculated Changes in EF (%)	Calculated Changes in EF (%)	Calculated Changes in EF (%)	Calculated Changes in EF (%)	Calculated Changes in EF (%)
	Original publication	Original publication	Jeevananthan et al. 201220	Jeevananthan et al. 201220	Jeevananthan et al. 201220	de Jong et al. 20142	de Jong et al 20142	de Jong et al 20142
	mean±SD	mean±SD	mean±SD	mean±SD		mean±SD	mean±SD
	Cell-treated	Controls	Cell-treated	Controls	Weight of study in forest plot	Cell- treated	Controls	Weight of study in forest plot
GeS10	4.8+	−1.9+	4.8±9.6	−1.9±5.9	1.3%	4.8±5.2	3.5±1.9	4.8%
PenickaS11	15.4+	20.5+	15.4±5.5	20.5±4.6	2.1%	6±5	8±4.8	4.4%
MeluzinS12	3±1 and 5±1++	2±1	4.0±4.7	2.0±4.7	2.6%	5±6.6	0±8.9	4.1%
NogueiraS13	nr	nr	6.9±6.2	2±11	0.9%	6.7±5.5	2±11.5	1.7%
PlewkaS14	10±9	5±8	9±7	5±3.6	2.5%	9±5.8	5±4.9	5.2%
CaoS15	nr	nr	11.5±3.2	7.9±3.4	2.9%	9.4±1.8	7.1±2.6	6.5%
YaoS16	7.2±1.6 and 11.7±2.6++	2.9±2	9.8±3.5	3.0±2.3	2.8%	6.2±2.4	2.2±1.8	6.3%
GrajekS17	nr	nr	−3.4±5.9	−6.4±7.9	1.9%	−2.5±5.6	0±7.8	4.0%
PiepoliS18	13.1±1.9	5.3±2	9.5±2.6	3.5±2.9	2.8%	8.4±9.2	2.2±12.6	2.5%
HirschS19	3.8±7.4 and 4.2±6.2++	4.0±5.8				3.8±7.4	5.2±5.8	5.7%

Note the disparities between the original publications and re-calculated values of both meta-analyses.

⁺SD of mean not reported,

⁺⁺two different cell-treatment arms;

nr, mean changes ±SD not reported (only baseline and FUP absolute values are reported).

Weight of the here selected (not all) studies from total 36 studies in the meta-analysis of Jeevanantham et al.²⁰and 22 studies in the meta-analysis of de Jong et al.²