Comment on "Effectiveness and safety of stem cell therapy for diabetic foot: a meta-analysis update"
Yan Bai, Fan Zhang
TL;DR
This comment highlights methodological issues in a meta-analysis on stem cell therapy for diabetic foot.
Contribution
The paper identifies specific flaws in the meta-analysis methodology and reporting.
Findings
The textual report conflicts with the forest plot results due to insufficient knowledge of RevMan.
The analysis requires correction for 'zero event' cases in the summary.
Improvements in the visual presentation of forest plots and registration are recommended.
Abstract
In the study published by Sun et al., a systematic review and meta-analysis illustrated the advantageous of stem cell therapy in diabetic foot and can improve the quality of life of patients. Nevertheless, the authors had a lack of knowledge regarding the methodology of the meta-analysis, which had four main aspects: (1) The textual report is inconsistent with the forest plot results, i.e., the authors have insufficient knowledge of RevMan. (2) The "zero event" needs to be corrected for summary analysis. (3) Lack of aesthetics in the forest plots. (4) Registration is recommended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMesenchymal stem cell research · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management