Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2018 Jan 10;8:325. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18754-4

Transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells on functional recovery and neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury; systematic review and meta-analysis

Babak Nakhjavan-Shahraki 1, Mahmoud Yousefifard 2, Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar 1, Masoud Baikpour 3, Farinaz Nasirinezhad 2, Saeed Safari 4, Mehdi Yaseri 5, Ali Moghadas Jafari 6, Parisa Ghelichkhani 7, Abbas Tafakhori 8,9, Mostafa Hosseini 5,10,✉
PMCID: PMC5762885  PMID: 29321494

Abstract

There are considerable disagreements on the application of olfactory ensheathing cells (OEC) for spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation. The present meta-analysis was designed to investigate the efficacy of OEC transplantation on motor function recovery and neuropathic pain alleviation in SCI animal models. Accordingly, all related studies were identified and included. Two independent researchers assessed the quality of the articles and summarized them by calculating standardized mean differences (SMD). OEC transplantation was shown to significantly improve functional recovery (SMD = 1.36; 95% confidence interval: 1.05–1.68; p < 0.001). The efficacy of this method was higher in thoracic injuries (SMD = 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.08–1.74; p < 0.001) and allogeneic transplants (SMD = 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.15–1.90; p < 0.001). OEC transplantation had no considerable effects on the improvement of hyperalgesia (SMD = −0.095; 95% confidence interval: −0.42–0.23; p = 0.57) but when the analyses were limited to studies with follow-up ≥8 weeks, it was associated with increased hyperalgesia (SMD = −0.66; 95% confidence interval: −1.28–0.04; p = 0.04). OEC transplantation did not affect SCI-induced allodynia (SMD = 0.54; 95% confidence interval: −0.80–1.87; p = 0.43). Our findings showed that OEC transplantation can significantly improve motor function post-SCI, but it has no effect on allodynia and might lead to relative aggravation of hyperalgesia.

Introduction

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is among the most important causes of mortality and disability in the young, with a reported global prevalence of 236 to 4178 cases per one million people, to which 180,000 cases are added every year1. Nevertheless, no definite treatment has been introduced for SCI and most measures are supportive and aim at alleviating symptoms of the patients2,3. Functional impairment, neuropathic pain, and diminished quality of life are the most prominent complications that patients with SCI encounter4.

In recent years, regenerative medicine has opened a promising window towards effective treatments for SCI5,6. Cell therapy is one of the important methods applied in this field, and can improve symptoms associated with SCI through creating new neural connections at the level of injury and driving differentiation of cells into neurons along with its neuroprotective activities. Various sources can be used for cell therapy ranging from stem cells to neural supporting cells7–11. Olfactory ensheathing cells (OEC) are also viable candidates for cell therapy which can improve neuropathic pain and motor function in patients with SCI through multiple mechanisms including phagocytosis of axonal debris, immunoprotective characteristics that help axonal recovery, migration towards glial scars, and secretion of neutrotrophic factors12. However, their efficacy has been questioned by multiple surveys13–16 and their association with aggravation of allodynia and hyperalgesia has limited application of this method17,18. Moreover, only a few studies have assessed improvement in sensory function after OEC transplantation and they have reported contradictory results19–21.

In this regard, in 2014 a meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of OECs on motor function recovery. Six studies were reviewed and the results depicted that transplantation of these cells can enhance functional recovery, but the study had considerable limitations. Firstly, in their systematic search only 95 non-repetitive articles were found. Secondly, their study suffered publication bias and their applied keywords were not able to yield the maximum number of articles22. In another meta-analysis conducted in 2016, OEC transplantation was shown to improve motor function of the animals with spinal cord injuries23, but the sensory status after transplantation was not evaluated in their study.

Therefore, a new meta-analysis was be performed with the same goal in order to reach a consensus. Furthermore, various treatment protocols have been used for OEC transplantation in spinal cord injuries that differed in injury phases, number of transplanted cells, OEC source (olfactory bulb or mucosa), timing of intervention, location of injury, use of antibiotic and immunosuppressive agents. These differences can cause significant variations in the reported results and the effect of treatment protocol on the efficacy of OEC transplantation in SCI is yet to be determined. Accordingly, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to investigate the efficacy of this treatment along with the effects of different treatment protocols applied.

Results

Characteristics

Extensive search in databases produced 3247 articles, from which 1971 were found to be non-repetitive. A total of 113 articles were screened initially through evaluation of titles and abstracts, among which 41 met the inclusion criteria. Four additional studies were found through manual search. After elimination of duplicate reports and quality assessment of the articles, 40 studies were included in the meta-analysis5,16,19–21,24–57. Only three of these articles were Chinese language32,53,56 and the remaining 37 were in English5,16,19–21,24–31,33–52,54,55,57. Figure 1 depicts the flowchart drawn for the process of searching and selecting the articles.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of including studies in the meta-analysis.

Thirty-one articles only assessed motor function in the animals5,16,24,26,27,30–32,34–39,41–49,51–57, three evaluated sensory function33,40,50 and six included both these entities19–21,25,28,29. As presented in Table 1, showing the characteristics of included surveys, five studies reported at least two separate experiments; two compared the efficacy of transplantation in acute phase with the subacute phase21,37, one compared the efficacy in two injury models of transection and photochemical37, another article compared the efficacy of OECs obtained from the olfactory mucosa with those derived from the olfactory bulb on post-SCI motor function53 and in the last one the effects of allogeneic transplantation of OECs was compared with xenogeneic transplantation of these cells on neuropathic pain33. Accordingly, data from 45 experiments were extracted from these 40 articles.

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies.

Author, Year Gender, Species, Weight (gr) Model, Location of injury, Severity OEC derivation origin, Donor, Graft, Dose, Type, Intervention time (day) Immunosuppressive, Antibiotic, Blinding Follow up (day)
Amemori19 Male, Rat, 270–300 Compression, T10, Moderate Mucosa, Rat, IS, 3 × 105, Allogeneic, 7 Yes, Yes, Yes 56
Barbour24 Female, Rat, 180–200 Contusion, T10, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 5 × 105, Allogeneic, 14 No, Yes, Yes 126
Bretzner25 Male, Rat, 300–400 Contusion, C4–C5, Moderate Mucosa, Mice, IS, 1.65 × 105, Xenogeneic, 1 Yes, No, No 28
Cao26 Female, Rat, 180–220 Transection, T8, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 2 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, Yes, No 56
Deng27 Female, Rat, 240–270 Contusion, T10, Moderate Bulb, Human, IS, 2.5 × 105, Xenogeneic, 1 Yes, Yes, Yes 35
Deumens28 Male, Rat, 200–250 Hemisection, T11, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 4 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, Yes 70
Deumens29 Female, Rat, 185–220 Hemisection, T13, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 4 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, No 70
Garcia–Alias20 Female, Rat, 200–250 Photochemical, T8, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 1.8 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, Yes 90
Gorrie30 Female, Rat, 110–147 Contusion, T10, Moderate Mucosa, Human, IS, 1 × 106, Xenogeneic, 7 No, Yes, Yes 35
Guest31 Female, Rat, 140–155 Transection, T9–T10, Severe Bulb, Macaca, IS, 4 × 105, Xenogeneic, 1 No, Yes, No 140
Jiang32 Male, Rat, 250− Transection, T9, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 1 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, No 84
Lang33 NR, Rat, 180–250 Hemisection, T10, Severe Bulb, Mice, IS, 3 × 106, Xenogeneic, 1 Yes, No, No 28
Li34 Male, Rat, 200–250 Contusion, T10, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 9 × 104, Allogeneic, 7 No, Yes, No 42
Li35 Male, Rat, 200–250 Contusion, T10, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 9 × 104, Allogeneic, 7 No, Yes, Yes 36
Liu36 Both, Rat, 250–280 Hemisection, T13, Severe Bulb, Rat, IT, 1 × 105, Allogeneic, 0.5 Yes, Yes, Yes 28
Luo40 Female, Rat, 180–250 Transection, T7–T9, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 3 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 Yes, No, Yes 28
Lopez-Vales37 Female, Rat, 250–300 Transection, T8, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 1.5 × 106, Allogeneic, 1 and 7 No, No, No 270
Lopez-Vales37 Female, Rat, 250–300 Transection and Photochemical, T8, Severe and Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 1.5 × 106 and 1.8 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, No 90 and 270
Lopez-Vales38 Female, Rat, 250–300 Transection, T8, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 1.5 × 106, Allogeneic, 45 No, No, No 195
Lu39 Female, Rat, 250–300 Transection, T10, Severe Mucosa, Rat, IS, 1 × 105, Allogeneic, 28 No, Yes, Yes 70
Ma41 Female, Rat, 180–220 Contusion, T9, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 1 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, Yes, No 64
Masgutova42 NR, Rat, 200–250 Hemisection, T8, Severe Mucosa, Human, IS, 2 × 105, Xenogeneic, 1 No, No, No 54
Pearse43 Female, Rat, 180–200 Contusion, T9, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 2 × 106, Allogeneic, 7 No, Yes, Yes 63
Resnick44 Male, Rat, 275–325 Contusion, T8–T9, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 2.5 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, Yes 42
Ruitenberg45 Female, Rat, 200 Hemisection, Cervical, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 2 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, Yes 112
Salehi46 Female, Rat, 250–300 Compression, T8–T9, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 1 × 106, Allogeneic, 9 Yes, Yes, No 28
Sasaki48 Female, Rat, 150–179 Transection, T9, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 1.5 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, Yes 35
Sasaki47 Female, Rat, 150–179 Transection, T9, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 1.5 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, Yes 35
Sun49 Female, Rat, 220–250 Contusion, T10, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 4 × 105, Allogeneic, 14 No, Yes, Yes 63
Takami16 Female, Rat, 160–180 Contusion, T9, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 2 × 106, Allogeneic, 7 No, No, Yes 70
Takeoka50 Female, Rat, 210–250 Transection, T9, Sever Bulb, Rat, IS, 4 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, Yes 210
Torres-Espin21 Female, Rat, 250–300 Contusion, T8–T9, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 4.5 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 and 7 No, Yes, No 35 and 42
Verdu51 Female, Rat, 250–300 Photochemical, T8, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 1.8 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, No 89
Wang52 Male, Rat, 200–250 Hemisection, T9, Severe Bulb, Rat, IS, 1 × 107, Allogeneic, 7 No, No, Yes 77
Wang53 Male, mice, 28–30 Transection, T9–T11, Severe Bulb and Mucosa, Rat, IS, 1 × 106, Allogeneic, 1 No, Yes, No 56
Wu54 NR, Rat, 200–240 Contusion, T9–T10, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 4 × 105, Allogeneic, 1 No, No, Yes 84
Wu55 Female, Rat, 250–300 Contusion, T10, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 3 × 105, Allogeneic, 7 No, Yes, Yes 28
Yazdani5 Female, Rat, 300–350 Contusion, T10, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 1 × 106, Allogeneic, 7 No, Yes, Yes 35
Yin56 Male, Rat, 250–300 Transection, T10, Severe Bulb, Human, IS, 2.5 × 105, Xenogeneic, 10 No, No, No 70
Zhang57 Male, Rat, 200–250 Contusion, T10, Moderate Bulb, Rat, IS, 6 × 105, Allogeneic, 7 Yes, Yes, Yes 63
Open in a new tab

IS: intra-spinal; IT: intrathecal; T: thoracic level of spinal cord; C: cervical level spinal cord.

Overall, data from 933 animals (control group = 464, treatment group = 469) were pooled together and analyzed. Thirty-one experiments were conducted on female animals and 14 were carried out on male subjects. Forty-three included rats and the other two evaluated mice. The most common injury models in the included articles were contusion with 19 experiments followed by transection with 14, hemisection with 7, photochemical with 3 and compression with 2 experiments. The mean (standard deviation) time interval between injury induction and transplantation was 5.3 ± 8.0 days (ranging from 0.05 to 45 days). In 26 experiments transplantation was done simultaneously with induction of injury (acute phase), in 15 experiments there was a 3 to 10-day gap between them (subacute phase) and in 4 experiments transplantation was carried out more than 2 weeks after the injury (chronic phase). Transplantation was intra-spinal in 44 experiments. Thirty-seven experiments used allogeneic transplants and the rest of studies applied xenogeneic transplantations. The number of transplanted cells per kg of body weight ranged from 3.6 × 105 to 4.4 × 107.

Meta-analysis

Efficacy of OEC transplantation on functional improvement

37 articles5,16,19–21,24–32,34–39,41–49,51–57 including 41 experiments assessed the efficacy of OEC transplantation with different treatment protocols on the motor function recovery after SCI (Fig. 2). The results showed that OEC transplantation significantly improved functional recovery (Pooled SMD = 1.36; 95% confidence interval: 1.05–1.68; p < 0.001; I2 = 74.80%). This section of the analyses had no publication bias (Coefficient = 0.43; 95% confidence interval: −0.05–0.91 p = 0.08).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Efficacy of olfactory ensheathing cells transplantation on motor function recovery after spinal cord injury. CI: Confidence interval; SMD: Standardized mean difference.

A significant heterogeneity was observed considering the effects of OEC transplantation on functional recovery (I2 = 74.80%; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that differences in location of injury, graft type and donor species were the most prominent sources of heterogeneity between the studies. The results of these analyses indicated that the efficacy of OEC transplantation on motor function recovery is higher when the injury affects thoracic region (SMD = 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.08–1.74; p < 0.001) compared to cervical spinal injuries (SMD = 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.02–1.37; p = 0.045). Allogeneic transplant was also found to have a greater efficacy (SMD = 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.15–1.90; p < 0.001) compared to xenogeneic transplant (SMD = 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.44–1.20; p < 0.001). Transplantation of OECs acquired from rats provided a higher efficacy as well (SMD = 1.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.11–1.85; p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Subgroup analyses of the effect of olfactory ensheathing cells on motor function recovery.

Characteristic P for biasa Model P (I2)b Effect Sizec (95% CI) Predictive interval P
Gender
Male 0.41 REM <0.001 (77.6%) 1.41 (0.82–2.01) −0.69–3.52 <0.001
Female 0.03 REM <0.001 (75.3%) 1.41 (1.02–1.80) −0.48–3.19 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.96
Recipient species
Rat 0.08 REM <0.001 (73.7%) 1.36 (1.05–1.68) −0.36–3.00 <0.001
Mice 0.99 REM <0.001 (94.5%) 2.53 (−1.72–6.82) −0.30–0.33 0.24
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.41
Injury model
Contusion 0.38 REM <0.001 (76.7%) 1.07 (0.60–1.54) −0.80–2.95 <0.001
Clip compression 0.99 REM 0.02 (83.2%) 1.89 (−0.52–4.30) −0.62–5.30 0.12
Photochemical 0.99 REM 0.04 (68.5%) 1.24 (0.08–2.39) −11.82–14.30 0.04
Hemisection 0.80 REM <0.001 (84.0%) 1.70 (0.47–2.94) −2.41–527 0.007
Transection 0.06 REM <0.001 (67.8%) 1.74 (1.23–2.25) 0.00–3.48 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.36
Location of injury
Cervical 0.08 FEM 0.68 (0.0%) 0.69 (0.02–1.37) NA 0.045
Thoracic 0.99 REM <0.001 (75.9%) 1.41 (1.08–1.74) −0.42–3.24 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.40
Severity of injury
Moderate 0.36 REM <0.001 (74.5%) 1.14 (0.73–1.55) −0.63–2.91 <0.001
Severe 0.05 REM <0.001 (73.8%) 1.72 (1.24–2.21) −0.41–3.14 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.15
OEC derivation origin
Bulb 0.09 REM <0.001 (75.3%) 1.42 (1.07–1.76) −0.41–3.14 <0.001
Mucosa 0.91 REM <0.001 (80.0%) 1.38 (0.44–2.33) −1.79–4.56 0.004
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.91
Intervention phase d
Acute 0.05 REM <0.001 (74.2%) 1.42 (0.99–1.85) −0.46–3.16 <0.001
Subacute 0.75 REM <0.001 (75.1%) 1.21 (0.70–1.73) −0.46–3.10 <0.001
Chronic 0.99 REM <0.001 (83.3%) 2.06 (0.65–3.47) −4.36–8.48 0.004
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.72
Graft type
Allogeneic 0.81 REM <0.001 (77.8%) 1.53 (1.15–1.90) −0.50–3.46 <0.001
Xenogeneic 0.03 FEM 0.30 (18.0%) 0.82 (0.44–1.20) NA <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.24
Number of transplanted cells
<3 × 106 cell dose/kg 0.07 REM <0.001 (73.6%) 1.37 (1.01–1.73) −0.37–3.01 <0.001
≥3 × 106 cell dose/kg 0.68 REM <0.001 (80.1%) 1.52 (0.83–2.21) −0.98–4.02 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.82
Donor species
Rat 0.81 REM <0.001 (77.8%) 1.48 (1.11–1.85) −0.50–3.46 <0.001
Human 0.29 FEM 0.14 (44.9%) 0.98 (0.34–1.62) NA 0.008
Other 0.99 FEM 0.77 (0.0%) 0.67 (0.18–1.16) NA 0.003
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.22
Use of antibiotic
No 0.02 REM <0.001 (68.0%) 1.34 (0.92–1.76) −0.34–2.87 <0.001
Yes 0.98 REM <0.001 (80.6%) 1.48 (1.00–1.97) −0.63–3.60 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.74
Use of immunosuppressive agents
No 0.89 REM <0.001 (79.7%) 1.38 (1.03–1.73) −0.47–3.13 <0.001
Yes 0.05 REM <0.001 (75.4%) 1.62 (0.72–2.52) −1.34–4.57 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.66
Blinding of observer
No 0.97 REM <0.001 (72.8%) 1.34 (0.89–1.79) −0.52–3.20 <0.001
Yes 0.007 REM <0.001 (78.5%) 1.47 (1.01–1.94) −0.55–3.34 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.77
Follow up period
<8 weeks 0.86 REM <0.001 (75.4%) 1.32 (0.77–1.88) −0.42–3.21 <0.001
≥8 weeks 0.07 REM <0.001 (76.3%) 1.46 (1.06–1.86) −0.77–3.42 <0.001
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.73
Open in a new tab

aPublication bias based on Begg’s and Egger’s test; bHeterogeneity among studies; cStandardized mean difference; dAcute: immediately after injury, Subacute: 2–10 days after injury; Chronic: equal or more than 14 days. NA: Not applicable; REM: random effect model; FEM: fixed effect, CI: confidence interval

Efficacy of OEC transplantation on spinal cord injury induced hyperalgesia

Six articles19–21,25,33,40 including 9 experiments investigated the efficacy of OEC transplantation on improvement of hyperalgesia caused by SCI. As presented in Fig. 3, OEC transplantation showed no significant effects on improvement of hyperalgesia in animals post-SCI (Pooled SMD = −0.095; 95% confidence interval: −0.42–0.23; p = 0.57; I2 = 24.60%). No publication bias was present in this section of the analyses (Coefficient = 0.48; 95% confidence interval: −6.12–7.09 p = 0.87).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Efficacy of olfactory ensheathing cells transplantation on hyperalgesia (A) and allodynia (B) after spinal cord injury. CI: Confidence interval; SMD: Standardized mean difference.

Nevertheless, the results of subgroup analysis showed that follow-up duration is a factor that affects the findings of the studies. OEC transplantation was found to aggravate hyperalgesia when only studies with follow-ups of equal or greater than 8 weeks were included (SMD = −0.66; 95% confidence interval: −1.28–0.04; p = 0.04), while analysis of the studies with shorter follow-ups found no significant relation between OEC transplantation and hyperalgesia (SMD = 0.13; 95% confidence interval: −0.26–0.51; p00.52) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Subgroup analyses of the effect of olfactory ensheathing cells on hyperalgesia.

Characteristic P for biasa Model P (I2)b Effect Sizec (95% CI) P
Gender
Male 0.52 FEM 0.95 (0.0%) −0.37 (−0.88–0.13) 0.14
Female 0.99 FEM 0.09 (50.9%) 0.12 (−0.51–0.74) 0.72
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.25
Injury model
Contusion 0.99 FEM 0.52 (0.0%) 0.31 (−0.28–0.90) 0.30
Clip compression 0.99 FEM 0.99 (0.0%) −0.53 (−1.30–0.25) 0.18
Photochemical 0.56 FEM 0.99 (0.0%) −0.89 (−1.93–0.14) 0.09
Hemisection 0.28 FEM 0.93 (0.0%) −0.36 (−1.24–0.53) 0.43
Transection 0.80 FEM 0.08 (66.7%) 0.16 (−0.48–0.79) 0.63
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.70
Location of injury
Cervical NA NA NA NA NA
Thoracic 0.49 FEM 0.16 (33.9%) −0.08 (−0.51–0.36) 0.72
Overall significance test among subgroups NA
Severity of injury
Moderate 0.44 FEM 0.16 (39.4%) −0.12 (−0.68–0.43) 0.69
Severe 0.58 FEM 0.28 (22.3%) −0.03 (−0.62–0.56) 0.92
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.85
OEC derivation origin
Bulb 0.56 FEM 0.55 (0.0%) 0.01 (−0.47–0.50) 0.22
Mucosa 0.99 FEM 0.17 (33.6%) −0.38 (−0.99–0.22) 0.96
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.42
Intervention phase d
Acute 0.48 FEM 0.23 (26.0%) −0.08 (−0.53–0.37) 0.73
Subacute 0.99 FEM 0.12 (58.9%) −0.07 (−1.09–0.95) 0.89
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.97
Graft type
Allogeneic 0.71 FEM 0.11 (42.0%) −0.05 (−0.53–0.44) 0.85
Xenogeneic 0.99 REM 0.76 (0.0%) −0.24 (−1.02–0.53) 0.54
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.71
Donor species
Mice 0.49 FEM 0.07 (50.9%) −0.26 (−0.92–0.40) 0.97
Rat 0.17 FEM 0.95 (0.0%) −0.01 (−0.56–0.53) 0.43
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.61
Use of antibiotic
No 0.48 FEM 0.30 (17.8%) −0.19 (−0.66–0.27) 0.42
Yes 0.14 FEM 0.13 (50.9%) 0.13 (−0.64–0.91) 0.74
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.50
Use of immunosuppressive agents
No 0.97 FEM 0.08 (60.9%) 0.08 (−0.88–1.04) 0.87
Yes 0.98 FEM 0.41 (0.5%) −0.17 (−0.56–0.22) 0.40
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.60
Blinding of observer
No 0.30 FEM 0.58 (0.0%) 0.11 (−0.38–0.60) 0.44
Yes 0.96 FEM 0.09 (54.4%) −0.26 (−0.92–0.40) 0.67
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.40
Follow up period
<8 weeks 0.54 FEM 0.44 (0.0%) 0.13 (−0.26–0.51) 0.52
≥8 weeks 0.99 FEM 0.58 (0.0%) −0.66 (−1.28–0.04) 0.04
Overall significance test among subgroups 0.07
Open in a new tab

aPublication bias based on Begg’s and Egger’s test; bHeterogeneity among studies; cStandardized mean difference; dAcute: immediately after injury, Subacute: 2–10 days after injury; FEM: fixed effect model, CI: confidence interval; NA: not applicable because of low number of included studies.

Efficacy of OEC transplantation on spinal cord injury induced allodynia

Four articles were found in the literature evaluating the effects of OEC transplantation on allodynia21,25,29,50. Evaluation of these studies found no significant relation between OEC transplantation and allodynia (Pooled SMD = 0.54; 95% confidence interval: −0.80–1.87; p = 0.43; I2 = 86.30%) (Fig. 3). This section also had no publication bias (Coefficient = 11.7; 95% confidence interval: −1.32–24.68 p = 0.07). Although a significant heterogeneity was observed between the studies, subgroup analysis could not be performed due to the small number of articles.

Discussion

Findings of the present study showed that OEC transplantation significantly improves motor function recovery in animals’ post-SCI. The observed efficacy was affected by the treatment protocol and it was found to be higher when the lesion was in the thoracic region, an allogeneic transplant was used and the cells were derived from rats. Although transplantation of these cells had no significant effect on allodynia in the animals, longer follow-ups were able to reveal that it can lead to aggravation of hyperalgesia.

For the first time, this meta-analysis evaluated the effects of OEC transplantation on neuropathic pain. Among the available literature, a few clinical studies have reported that OEC transplantation does not significantly affect neuropathic pain in subjects with SCI58, while others have shown a significant improvement in pain after this treatment59. This discrepancy could be attributed to the difference in follow-up periods. For instance, in their study with a follow-up period of 8 weeks, Tabakow et al. found a significant improvement in neuropathic pain after OEC transplantation58, while Zheng et al. reported no significant improvement in their subjects after a 12 month follow-up period59. The present study also showed that longer follow-up periods were associated with reports of OEC transplantation negatively affecting neuropathic pain post-SCI. Hence, further investigations are required to reach a consensus on this subject.

The overall results of the present study regarding the effects of OEC transplantation on motor function recovery were congruent with the two previous meta-analyses performed; the study conducted by Liu et al. that included six animal surveys and reported that OEC transplantation can improve functional recovery22, and the study conducted by Watzlawick et al. which confirmed these results23. The results of our study cannot be further compared to Liu et al.’s since they did not perform subgroup analysis on their data. On the other hand, Watzlawick et al. carried out subgroup analysis, the results of which were incompatible with that of the present survey. These authors found that OEC transplantation performed immediately after photochemically induced injuries with doses of 1.8 × 105 to 1.5 × 105 is associated with better motor function recovery. Moreover, the OEC transplantation was found to be more effective when the cells are fractionated, derived from the olfactory bulb and injected into the rostral-caudal parenchyma. On the contrary, in the present study allogeneic transplants, treatment of thoracic lesions and OECs acquired from rats were associated with greater improvements in motor function. These discrepancies might be due to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria of the studies. For instance, in the present study using directed forelimb reaching test, olfactory tissue blocks and combination protocols were considered as exclusion criteria to decrease heterogeneity of the included studies; while Watzlawick et al. included surveys with these conditions. Furthermore, based on the current guidelines, performing subgroup analyses and multiple meta-regressions in a meta-analysis can lead to a bias, known as data dredging60. Accordingly, we performed subgroup analysis only for the most important factors affecting the efficacy of OEC transplantation on SCI complications. This might be the reason that meta-regression yielded more significant factors in the Watzlawick et al.’s study.

The optimum cellular dose for OEC transplantation in SCI was reported to be 1.8 × 105 to 1.5 × 105 by Watzlawick et al., while no such relation was observed in the present study which could be due to the difference in definition of cellular dose in the two studies. Watzlawick et al. included crude numbers of transplanted cells into their analysis while the cellular dose in our study referred to the crude numbers standardized for the weight of the animals. Since different animal species (mice and rat) were evaluated in the included studies, this standardization seems to be of utmost significance; a certain dose (crude dose) of transplanted cells in mice might be considered a high dose, while the same amount in rats might be regarded as moderate or even low dose23.

In the present study, extensive search in electronic databases, contacting authors of the articles and manual search yielded the extreme number of articles and included non-indexed literature. This method led to inclusion of 40 articles and 45 experiments in present study. On this basis, data from 933 animals including 464 controls and 469 treated animals were analyzed. Lack of publication bias is another advantage of this study. Although a significant heterogeneity was observed in evaluation of motor function recovery, the extensive search provided homogeneity in assessment of hyperalgesia. The limitation of heterogeneity in the included studies was tackled by performing subgroup analyses. Not blinding the researchers in some of the included studies was another limitation of the present survey which might have subjected our results to bias. However, since blinding status had no significant relation with efficacy of OEC transplantation in subgroup analyses, it seems that the bias is at its minimum level. Another factor that could be a potential source of heterogeneity is the purity of transplanted OECs. Although most of the included articles have declared application of “high purity” OECs, few have actually provided evidence for their claim.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis showed that OEC transplantation significantly improves motor function recovery of the animals after SCI. It seems that this treatment is most effective on motor function recovery, when it is used in a thoracic SCI rather than a cervical injury, when an allogeneic transplant is performed and when the cells are derived from rats. Although the treatment does not affect allodynia, longer follow-ups reveal relative aggravation of hyperalgesia following OEC transplantations. Since findings of clinical studies regarding the relation between OEC transplantation and neuropathic pain are inconsistent and aggravation of pain is one of the limitations for using this treatment, further studies with longer follow-up periods should be conducted to assess the effects of OEC transplantation on the severity of neuropathic pain. Finally, the effects of OEC transplantation should be interpreted with caution since the treatment may not be beneficial in every setting. Accordingly, further investigations are required to determine the subgroups of patients and the specific settings that benefit the most from this treatment.

Methods

The study was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines61.

Search strategy

We searched several databases including Web of Science (BIOSIS), Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Embase (via OvidSP), and ProQuest from the beginning of the year 1944 to the end of 2015. Keywords related to “olfactory ensheathing cells” combined with terms related to “spinal cord injury” were used in the search. The combined keywords in the three databases of Embase, Medline and Scopus are presented in Table 4. The method through which these keywords were selected and combined is presented in previous surveys62,63.

Table 4.

Keywords used for search in Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases.

Database Search terms
Medline (PubMed) “olfactory ensheathing cell*“[mesh] OR “olfactory bulb cell*“[mesh] OR “Olfactory ensheathing glia”[mesh] OR “ensheathing cell*“[tiab] OR “Olfactory Cortex cell*“[tiab] OR “olfactory cell*“[tiab] OR “olfactory bulb‐ensheathing cell line”[tiab] OR “olfactory nerve ensheathing cells”[tiab] OR “ensheathing cell*“[tiab] OR “Olfactory ensheathing glia*“[tiab]] OR “olfactory schwann cell*“[tiab] OR “schwann cells of the olfactory nerve”[tiab] AND “Spinal cord injuries”[MeSH] OR “Spinal cord contusion”[tiab] OR “Spinal cord transection”[tiab] OR “Injured spinal cord” [tiab] OR “Spinal Cord Trauma”[tiab] OR “Spinal cord Hemisection”[tiab] OR “Spinal compression”[tiab] OR “Traumatic Myelopath*“[tiab] OR “Spinal Cord Laceratio*“[tiab] OR “Post-Traumatic Myelopath*“[tiab]
EMBASE (OvidSP) exp olfactory ensheathing cell/OR (olfactory ensheathing cell$ OR olfactory bulb cell OR Olfactory ensheathing$ glia OR ensheathing cell$ OR Olfactory Cortex cell$ OR olfactory cell$ OR olfactory bulb ensheathing cell line OR olfactory nerve ensheathing cells OR olfactory schwann cell$“ OR schwann cells of the olfactory nerve).ti,ab. AND exp Spinal cord injuries/OR (Spinal cord contusion OR Spinal cord transection OR Injured spinal cord OR Spinal Cord Traum$ OR Spinal cord Hemisection OR Spinal compression OR Spinal Cord Laceratio$).ti,ab.
SCOPUS ((TITLE-ABS-KEY (olfactory ensheathing cell) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (olfactory bulb cell) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (olfactory ensheathing glia) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (ensheathing cell) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (olfactory cortex cell) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (olfactory cell) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (olfactory bulb ensheathing cell line) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (olfactory nerve ensheathing cells) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (olfactory schwann cell))) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (schwann cells of the olfactory nerve))) AND ((TITLE-ABS-KEY (spinal cord injuries) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (spinal cord injury) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (spinal cord transection) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (spinal cord hemisection) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (injured spinal cord) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (spinal cord trauma) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (spinal compression) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (spinal cord contusion)))
Open in a new tab

Along with the conducted systematic search, manual search was performed to yield further articles and grey literature. The search technique for grey literature has been described in the previous meta-analyses conducted by the authors11,62–68. Briefly, search in Google Scholar and Google Search Engine was performed based on the keywords related to the study’s questions. Moreover, the authors of articles with similar aims and methods were contacted via email and theses were searched in the ProQuest database. Finally, in order to find additional articles, bibliographies of related articles were reviewed and manual-searching of highly focused journals was carried out. Four more articles were found via this method.

Eligibility criteria

All the controlled animal experiments published from the beginning of the year 1944 until the end of 2015 which evaluated the effects of OEC transplantation on recovery of motor function, hyperalgesia and allodynia after SCI were included in the present study. No linguistic limitations were applied. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) in vivo animal experiments regardless of the age, gender or species of included subjects; 2) induction of SCI based on standard models of contusion, compression, hemisection, transection and photochemical injury; 3) moderate and severe injuries. Exclusion criteria included any modifications of transplanted cells, application of combined therapy methods, transplantation of olfactory tissue blocks, follow-up of less than 4 weeks, evaluation of the outcome according to unstandardized behavioral tests and lack of a control group (spinal cord injured animals, treated by saline or vehicle).

Data extraction and quality assessment

Search, summarization, data gathering and assessment were carried out by two independent reviewers. Any disagreements were solved through discussion with a third researcher (89% agreement). Data gathering was performed based on an online checklist designed according to PRISMA guidelines. After elimination of repetitive studies, initial screening was carried out and potentially eligible studies were selected, their full-texts were studied and data were extracted from the ones that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Extracted data are presented in Table 1 which includes characteristics of evaluated animals, treatment protocol, follow-up duration, outcome and possible biases. The method proposed by Sistrom and Mergo for data extraction from charts was utilized as needed69. If the outcome was assessed multiple times during a study, the last measurements were included. If data were not presented in the article, the authors were contacted and in cases of no response, two reminders were sent with one week intervals. If the corresponding author did not respond, social networks such as LinkedIn and ResearchGate were used to make contact with other authors of the article. Finally, quality assessment of the articles was carried out based on the 19-item checklist designed by Yousefifard et al.62.

Statistical analysis

All the analyses were performed by the STATA 11.0 software. Data were summarized as means and standard deviations, and standardized mean differences (SMD) were computed with a 95% confidence interval according to Hedges’ g. Eventually, a pooled effect size was calculated. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s and Begg’s tests70. Interstudy heterogeneity was considered using Chi-squared and I2 tests. If this test provided evidence of heterogeneity (p value less than 0.1 or an I2 greater than 50%), random effect model was applied, otherwise we used fixed effect model. In random effect analyses, 95% predictive intervals were calculated to illustrate the degree of heterogeneity and to predict true treatment effect in an individual study71,72.

Subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the differences between different treatment protocols in efficacy of OEC transplantation on recovery of motor function and sensory status of the subjects. Statistical significance level was considered at a P value of less than 0.05.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during this meta-analysis could be shared by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

A grant from Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services and Sina Trauma and Surgery research center supported this research (grant number: 94-03-38-30225).

Author Contributions

B.N.S., M.Y., V.R., A.T. and M.H. designed the study. M.Y., B.N.S., S.S., A.M.J., and F.N. participated in acquisition of data. M.H. and M.Y. analyzed the data. M.B. and P.A. participated in management of data. M.Y., M.B. and B.N.S. wrote the first draft and made revisions in the manuscript as needed. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for publication and declare accountability for all the aspects of the work.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Lee B, Cripps R, Fitzharris M, Wing P. The global map for traumatic spinal cord injury epidemiology: update 2011, global incidence rate. Spinal cord. 2014;52:110–116. doi: 10.1038/sc.2012.158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mehta S, McIntyre A, Janzen S, Loh E, Teasell R. Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Treatments of Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: An Update. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2016;97:1381–1391.e1381. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.12.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hurlbert RJ, et al. Pharmacological therapy for acute spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(Suppl 1):S71–83. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000462080.04196.f7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ma VY, Chan L, Carruthers KJ. Incidence, prevalence, costs, and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the United States: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2014;95:986–995.e981. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.10.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yazdani SO, et al. A comparison between neurally induced bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells and olfactory ensheathing glial cells to repair spinal cord injuries in rat. Tissue & cell. 2012;44:205–213. doi: 10.1016/j.tice.2012.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Huang H, Sharma HS. Neurorestoratology: one of the most promising new disciplines at the forefront of neuroscience and medicine. J. Neurorestoratol. 2013;1:37–41. doi: 10.2147/JN.S47592. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ruitenberg MJ, Vukovic J, Sarich J, Busfield SJ, Plant GW. Olfactory ensheathing cells: characteristics, genetic engineering, and therapeutic potential. Journal of neurotrauma. 2006;23:468–478. doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.23.468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sarveazad A, et al. Comparison of human adipose-derived stem cells and chondroitinase ABC transplantation on locomotor recovery in the contusion model of spinal cord injury in rats. Iranian journal of basic medical sciences. 2014;17:685–693. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yousefifard M, et al. Human bone marrow-derived and umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells for alleviating neuropathic pain in a spinal cord injury model. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2016;7:1–14. doi: 10.1186/s13287-016-0295-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hosseini M, Yousefifard M, Aziznejad H, Nasirinezhad F. The Effect of Bone Marrow–Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation on Allodynia and Hyperalgesia in Neuropathic Animals: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2015;21:1537–1544. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Izadi A, et al. Diagnostic Value of Urinary Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL) in Detection of Pediatric Acute Kidney Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Pediatr. 2016;4:3875–3895. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lu J, Féron F, Mackay‐Sim A, Waite PM. Olfactory ensheathing cells promote locomotor recovery after delayed transplantation into transected spinal cord. Brain. 2002;125:14–21. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gomez VM, et al. Transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells fails to promote significant axonal regeneration from dorsal roots into the rat cervical cord. Journal of neurocytology. 2003;32:53–70. doi: 10.1023/A:1027328331832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ramer LM, Richter MW, Roskams AJ, Tetzlaff W, Ramer MS. Peripherally-derived olfactory ensheathing cells do not promote primary afferent regeneration following dorsal root injury. Glia. 2004;47:189–206. doi: 10.1002/glia.20054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Riddell JS, Enriquez-Denton M, Toft A, Fairless R, Barnett SC. Olfactory ensheathing cell grafts have minimal influence on regeneration at the dorsal root entry zone following rhizotomy. Glia. 2004;47:150–167. doi: 10.1002/glia.20041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Takami T, et al. Schwann cell but not olfactory ensheathing glia transplants improve hindlimb locomotor performance in the moderately contused adult rat thoracic spinal cord. J Neurosci. 2002;22:6670–6681. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-15-06670.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hofstetter CP, et al. Allodynia limits the usefulness of intraspinal neural stem cell grafts; directed differentiation improves outcome. Nature neuroscience. 2005;8:346–353. doi: 10.1038/nn1405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Macias MY, et al. Pain with no gain: allodynia following neural stem cell transplantation in spinal cord injury. Experimental neurology. 2006;201:335–348. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.04.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Amemori T, Jendelova P, Ruzickova K, Arboleda D, Sykova E. Co-transplantation of olfactory ensheathing glia and mesenchymal stromal cells does not have synergistic effects after spinal cord injury in the rat. Cytotherapy. 2010;12:212–225. doi: 10.3109/14653240903440103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Garcia-Alias G, Lopez-Vales R, Fores J, Navarro X, Verdu E. Acute transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells or Schwann cells promotes recovery after spinal cord injury in the rat. Journal of neuroscience research. 2004;75:632–641. doi: 10.1002/jnr.20029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Torres-Espin A, Redondo-Castro E, Hernandez J, Navarro X. Bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells and olfactory ensheathing cells transplantation after spinal cord injury - a morphological and functional comparison in rats. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2014;39:1704–1717. doi: 10.1111/ejn.12542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Liu J, et al. Meta analysis of olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation promoting functional recovery of motor nerves in rats with complete spinal cord transection. Neural regeneration research. 2014;9:1850–1858. doi: 10.4103/1673-5374.143434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Watzlawick R, et al. Olfactory Ensheathing Cell Transplantation in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury: Effect size and Reporting Bias of 62 Experimental Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Barbour HR, Plant CD, Harvey AR, Plant GW. Tissue sparing, behavioral recovery, supraspinal axonal sparing/regeneration following sub-acute glial transplantation in a model of spinal cord contusion. BMC neuroscience. 2013;14:106. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-14-106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bretzner F, Liu J, Currie E, Roskams AJ, Tetzlaff W. Undesired effects of a combinatorial treatment for spinal cord injury–transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells and BDNF infusion to the red nucleus. The European journal of neuroscience. 2008;28:1795–1807. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06462.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cao L, et al. Olfactory ensheathing cells genetically modified to secrete GDNF to promote spinal cord repair. Brain. 2004;127:535–549. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Deng YB, et al. The co-transplantation of human bone marrow stromal cells and embryo olfactory ensheathing cells as a new approach to treat spinal cord injury in a rat model. Cytotherapy. 2008;10:551–564. doi: 10.1080/14653240802165673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Deumens R, et al. Olfactory ensheathing cells, olfactory nerve fibroblasts and biomatrices to promote long-distance axon regrowth and functional recovery in the dorsally hemisected adult rat spinal cord. Exp Neurol. 2006;200:89–103. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.01.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Deumens R, et al. Motor outcome and allodynia are largely unaffected by novel olfactory ensheathing cell grafts to repair low-thoracic lesion gaps in the adult rat spinal cord. Behavioural brain research. 2013;237:185–189. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.09.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gorrie CA, et al. Effects of human OEC-derived cell transplants in rodent spinal cord contusion injury. Brain research. 2010;1337:8–20. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.04.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Guest JD, et al. Xenografts of expanded primate olfactory ensheathing glia support transient behavioral recovery that is independent of serotonergic or corticospinal axonal regeneration in nude rats following spinal cord transection. Exp Neurol. 2008;212:261–274. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jiang B, Shen Y-X, Wang P-J, Lu Z-F, Fan Z-H. Repairing effect of OECs transplantation for spinal cord injury. Suzhou. Uni. J. Med. Sci. 2010;30:34–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lang BC, et al. OECs transplantation results in neuropathic pain associated with BDNF regulating ERK activity in rats following cord hemisection. BMC neuroscience. 2013;14:80. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-14-80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Li BC, Li Y, Chen LF, Chang JY, Duan ZX. Olfactory ensheathing cells can reduce the tissue loss but not the cavity formation in contused spinal cord of rats. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2011;303:67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2011.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Li BC, Xu C, Zhang JY, Li Y, Duan ZX. Differing schwann cells and olfactory ensheathing cells behaviors, from interacting with astrocyte, produce similar improvements in contused rat spinal cord’s motor function. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience. 2012;48:35–44. doi: 10.1007/s12031-012-9740-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Liu KJ, et al. Analysis of olfactory ensheathing glia transplantation-induced repair of spinal cord injury by electrophysiological, behavioral, and histochemical methods in rats. Journal of molecular neuroscience: MN. 2010;41:25–29. doi: 10.1007/s12031-009-9223-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lopez-Vales R, Fores J, Navarro X, Verdu E. Olfactory ensheathing glia graft in combination with FK506 administration promote repair after spinal cord injury. Neurobiology of disease. 2006;24:443–454. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2006.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lopez-Vales R, Fores J, Navarro X, Verdu E. Chronic transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells promotes partial recovery after complete spinal cord transection in the rat. Glia. 2007;55:303–311. doi: 10.1002/glia.20457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lu J, Feron F, Ho SM, Mackay-Sim A, Waite PM. Transplantation of nasal olfactory tissue promotes partial recovery in paraplegic adult rats. Brain research. 2001;889:344–357. doi: 10.1016/S0006-8993(00)03235-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Luo Y, et al. Transplantation of NSCs with OECs alleviates neuropathic pain associated with NGF downregulation in rats following spinal cord injury. Neuroscience letters. 2013;549:103–108. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2013.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ma YH, et al. Effect of neurotrophin-3 genetically modified olfactory ensheathing cells transplantation on spinal cord injury. Cell transplantation. 2010;19:167–177. doi: 10.3727/096368910X492634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Masgutova GA, Savchenko EA, Viktorov IV, Masgutov RF, Chelyshev YA. Reaction of oligoglia to spinal cord injury in rats and transplantation of human olfactory ensheathing cells. Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine. 2010;149:135–139. doi: 10.1007/s10517-010-0892-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pearse DD, et al. Transplantation of Schwann cells and/or olfactory ensheathing glia into the contused spinal cord: Survival, migration, axon association, and functional recovery. Glia. 2007;55:976–1000. doi: 10.1002/glia.20490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Resnick DK, et al. Adult olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation for acute spinal cord injury. Journal of neurotrauma. 2003;20:279–285. doi: 10.1089/089771503321532860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ruitenberg MJ, et al. Ex vivo adenoviral vector-mediated neurotrophin gene transfer to olfactory ensheathing glia: Effects on rubrospinal tract regeneration, lesion size, and functional recovery after implantation in the injured rat spinal cord. J Neurosci. 2003;23:7045–7058. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-18-07045.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Salehi M, et al. Repair of spinal cord injury by co-transplantation of embryonic stem cell-derived motor neuron and olfactory ensheathing cell. Iran. Biomed. J. 2009;13:125–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sasaki M, Hains BC, Lankford KL, Waxman SG, Kocsis JD. Protection of corticospinal tract neurons after dorsal spinal cord transection and engraftment of olfactory ensheathing cells. Glia. 2006;53:352–359. doi: 10.1002/glia.20285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sasaki M, Lankford KL, Zemedkun M, Kocsis JD. Identified olfactory ensheathing cells transplanted into the transected dorsal funiculus bridge the lesion and form myelin. J Neurosci. 2004;24:8485–8493. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1998-04.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sun T, Ye C, Zhang Z, Wu J, Huang H. Cotransplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells and schwann cells combined with treadmill training promotes functional recovery in rats with contused spinal cords. Cell transplantation. 2013;22:S27–S38. doi: 10.3727/096368913X672118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Takeoka A, et al. Axon Regeneration Can Facilitate or Suppress Hindlimb Function after Olfactory Ensheathing Glia Transplantation. Journal of Neuroscience. 2011;31:4298–4310. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4967-10.2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Verdu E, Garcia-Alias G, Fores J, Lopez-Vales R, Navarro X. Olfactory ensheathing cells transplanted in lesioned spinal cord prevent loss of spinal cord parenchyma and promote functional recovery. Glia. 2003;42:275–286. doi: 10.1002/glia.10217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wang G, et al. Synergistic effect of neural stem cells and olfactory ensheathing cells on repair of adult rat spinal cord injury. Cell transplantation. 2010;19:1325–1337. doi: 10.3727/096368910X505855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wang L, Yang P, Liang X, Ma L, Wei J. Comparison of therapeutic effects of olfactory ensheathing cells derived from olfactory mucosa or olfactory bulb on spinal cord injury mouse models. Chinese J. Cell Mol. Immun. 2014;30:379–383. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wu J, Sun TS, Ren JX, Wang XZ. Ex vivo non-viral vector-mediated neurotrophin-3 gene transfer to olfactory ensheathing glia: Effects on axonal regeneration and functional recovery after implantation in rats with spinal cord injury. Neuroscience Bulletin. 2008;24:57–65. doi: 10.1007/s12264-008-0057-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wu S, et al. The cotransplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells with bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells exerts antiapoptotic effects in adult rats after spinal cord injury. Stem Cell Int. 2015;2015:1–13. doi: 10.1155/2015/516215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Yin G, Tang X, Lin Y. Recovery of adult rat spinal cord injury by co-transplantion of human embryonic olfactory ensheathing cells and neuro stem cells. Chinese J. Rehabil. Med. 2006;21:680–682. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Zhang J, et al. Synergic effects of EPI-NCSCs and OECs on the donor cells migration, the expression of neurotrophic factors, and locomotor recovery of contused spinal cord of rats. Journal of molecular neuroscience: MN. 2015;55:760–769. doi: 10.1007/s12031-014-0416-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tabakow P, et al. Transplantation of autologous olfactory ensheathing cells in complete human spinal cord injury. Cell transplantation. 2013;22:1591–1612. doi: 10.3727/096368912X663532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Zheng Z, Liu G, Chen Y, Wei S. Olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation improves sympathetic skin responses in chronic spinal cord injury. Neural Reg. Res. 2013;8:2849–2855. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.30.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Cochrane Collaboration. In Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 Vol. Part 2: General methods for Cochrane reviews (eds Julian PT Higgins & Sally Green) (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011).
  • 61.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151:264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Yousefifard M, et al. Neural stem/progenitor cell transplantation for spinal cord injury treatment; A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience. 2016;322:377–397. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.02.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Izadi A, et al. Value of Plasma/Serum Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin in Detection of Pediatric Acute Kidney Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Pediatr. 2016;4:3815–3836. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Hassanzadeh‐Rad A, et al. The value of 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for prediction of treatment response in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2016;31:929–935. doi: 10.1111/jgh.13247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hosseini M, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography and Radiography in Detection of Pulmonary Contusion; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Emergency. 2015;3:127–136. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Rahimi-Movaghar V, et al. Application of Ultrasonography and Radiography in Detection of Hemothorax: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Emergency. 2016;4:116–126. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Safari S, et al. The value of serum creatine kinase in predicting the risk of rhabdomyolysis-induced acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical and experimental nephrology. 2016;20:153–161. doi: 10.1007/s10157-015-1204-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Ghelichkhani P, et al. The Value of Serum Β-Subunit of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Level in Prediction of Treatment Response to Methotrexate in Management of Ectopic Pregnancy; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Pediatr. 2016;4:3503–3518. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Sistrom CL, Mergo PJ. A simple method for obtaining original data from published graphs and plots. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1241–1244. doi: 10.2214/ajr.174.5.1741241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997;315:629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Guddat C, Grouven U, Bender R, Skipka G. A note on the graphical presentation of prediction intervals in random-effects meta-analyses. Systematic reviews. 2012;1:34. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. Bmj. 2011;342:d549. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during this meta-analysis could be shared by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES