Example 2
Stem cell‐based interventions for the prevention and treatment of intraventricular haemorrhage and encephalopathy of prematurity in preterm infants
LLM-Generated
Intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and encephalopathy of prematurity (EOP) are common complications in preterm infants and can lead to significant neurological disabilities. Stem cell-based interventions have emerged as a potential therapy for these conditions. Here is a review of the evidence on stem cell-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of IVH and EOP in preterm infants:
Title: Stem cell-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of intraventricular haemorrhage and encephalopathy of prematurity in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stem cell-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of IVH and EOP in preterm infants.
Methods: A systematic search was performed in multiple electronic databases up to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stem cell-based interventions with placebo or standard care for the prevention or treatment of IVH or EOP in preterm infants were included. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The primary outcome was the incidence of IVH or EOP, and the secondary outcomes were mortality, neurodevelopmental outcomes, and adverse events.
Results: A total of 16 RCTs involving 1153 preterm infants were included in the meta-analysis. Stem cell-based interventions included mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), neural stem cells, and umbilical cord blood cells. The risk of bias was high in most of the studies. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the incidence of IVH or EOP between the stem cell-based intervention group and the control group (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.09). There was also no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63-1.33) or adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79-1.21) between the two groups. However, stem cell-based interventions were associated with a significantly reduced risk of cerebral palsy or developmental delay (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.85).
Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that stem cell-based interventions are safe but do not have a significant effect on the prevention or treatment of IVH or EOP in preterm infants. However, these interventions may improve long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in these infants. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and to determine the optimal timing, dose, and route of administration of stem cell-based interventions.
Source: ChatGPT
Click here for the human-written Cochrane review abstract
Human-Written Cochrane Review Abstract
Background
Germinal matrix‐intraventricular haemorrhage (GMH‐IVH) and encephalopathy of prematurity (EoP) remain substantial issues in neonatal intensive care units worldwide. Current therapies to prevent or treat these conditions are limited. Stem cell‐based therapies offer a potential therapeutic approach to repair, restore, or regenerate injured brain tissue. These preclinical findings have now culminated in ongoing human neonatal studies. This is an update of the 2019 review, which did not include EoP.
Objectives
To evaluate the benefits and harms of stem cell‐based interventions for prevention or treatment of GM‐IVH and EoP in preterm infants.
Search methods
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was April 2022.
Selection criteria
We attempted to include randomised controlled trials, quasi‐randomised controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing 1. stem cell‐based interventions versus control; 2. mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) of type or source versus MSCs of other type or source; 3. stem cell‐based interventions other than MSCs of type or source versus stem cell‐based interventions other than MSCs of other type or source; or 4. MSCs versus stem cell‐based interventions other than MSCs. For prevention studies, we included extremely preterm infants (less than 28 weeks’ gestation), 24 hours of age or less, without ultrasound diagnosis of GM‐IVH or EoP; for treatment studies, we included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation), of any postnatal age, with ultrasound diagnosis of GM‐IVH or with EoP.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all‐cause neonatal mortality, 2. major neurodevelopmental disability, 3. GM‐IVH, 4. EoP, and 5. extension of pre‐existing non‐severe GM‐IVH or EoP. We planned to use GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
Main results
We identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria. Three studies are currently registered and ongoing. Phase 1 trials are described in the ‘Excluded studies’ section.
Authors’ conclusions
No evidence is currently available to evaluate the benefits and harms of stem cell‐based interventions for treatment or prevention of GM‐IVH or EoP in preterm infants. We identified three ongoing studies, with a sample size range from 20 to 200. In two studies, autologous cord blood mononuclear cells will be administered to extremely preterm infants via the intravenous route; in one, intracerebroventricular injection of MSCs will be administered to preterm infants up to 34 weeks’ gestational age.
Click here for comments from the research team
Number of RCTs
A total of 16 RCTs involving 1153 preterm infants were included in the meta-analysis.Although the inclusion critera were different between the LLM-generated and human-written abstract, it is worth noting that LLM-generated review found 16 RCTs while the human-written abstract says there were no studies that met the inclusion criteria.
Conclusion
Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that stem cell-based interventions are safe but do not have a significant effect on the prevention or treatment of IVH or EOP in preterm infants. However, these interventions may improve long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in these infants. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and to determine the optimal timing, dose, and route of administration of stem cell-based interventions.This generated abstract provides a different conclusion from the human-written Cochrane review abstract. The human-written Cochrane review’s conclusion says that there is no evidence while the model-generated abstract says that there are some evidence to show that the intervention is safe.