Wang 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Parallel groups (2) Open label Single centre Country: China Duration: 6 months
Participants	24 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio (12 SCT and 12 control) Period (recruitment): January 2002 to October 2004 Inclusion criteria: aged ≤ 70 years; DCM according to the WHO/International Society and Federation of Cardiology Task Force definition; LVEF < 45% Exclusion criteria: people with secondary myocardiopathy Baseline characteristics Sex (male): control 69.2% vs SCT 75% Age (years), mean: control 58.4 (SD 11) vs SCT 54.0 (SD 11) LVEF (%), mean: control not reported vs SCT 30.0 (SD 9) LVEDD (mm), mean: control not reported vs SCT 69.3 (SD 2.2)
Interventions	Intervention group: STC Details of SCT Cell origin: autologous Cell collection location: bone marrow (right ilian crest) Type of cells infused: mononuclear Mean volume/number administered: cell final concentration was 5.86 (SD 2.36) × 105/mL Cell mobilization: not reported Delivery route: IC (30 mL) Number of cell infusions: single Control group: placebo Equal quantity of saline Study included in Comparison 1 (STC vs control)
Outcomes	Outcomes included in review Mortality Change from baseline in BNP levels Change from baseline in 6MWT Change from baseline in LVEF Ventricular tachycardia Other outcomes reported Change from baseline in LVEDD Changes of serum inflammation indicators before and after transplantation Premature ventricular contractions Heart transplant
Notes	Not registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Study published in Chinese in short format. Funding: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Placebo‐controlled (control group received same volume of saline).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Not mentioned if the outcome assessors were blinded but the use of a sham procedure as a placebo suggests that risk of detection bias was low.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No lost to follow‐up or flow chart reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol reported.