Table 1 Objective 1, meta-regression analysis of the effect of (A) the biomaterial format, (B) the specific biomaterial on locomotor recovery and (C) the specific biomaterial on in vivo axonal regeneration in BMO studies.
A Improvement in locomotor outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Biomaterial format | Effect size (%) | P > | t | | 95% Conf. Interval | Frequency % (n) |
Scaffold | 10.4 | 0.001 | [5.2, 15.6] | 33.8 (23) |
Microsphere-loaded hydrogel | 9.6 | 0.967 | [−3.8, 22.9] | 8.8 (6) |
Hydrogel (not injected) | 8.9 | 0.695 | [1.1, 16.7] | 27.9 (19) |
Linear oriented scaffold | 4.6 | 0.189 | [−4.2, 13.4] | 19.1 (13) |
Hydrogel (injected) | 1.4 | 0.120 | [−10.2, 13] | 8.8 (6) |
Other formats | 8.7 | 0.907 | [−20, 37.5] | 1.5 (1) |
comparisons= 68, p = 0.610, Tau2 = 88.43, I2 = 88.43%, adj R2 = 0% | ||||
B Improvement in locomotor outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Biomaterial name | Effect size (%) | P > | t | | 95% Conf. Interval | Frequency % (n) |
PHEMA-MMA | 12 | 0.553 | [−2.2, 26.2] | 7.3 (5) |
PLGA | 8.7 | 0.875 | [−3.8, 21.3] | 8.7 (6) |
Collagen | 7.8 | 0.054 | [−0.2, 15.7] | 20.6 (14) |
HA | 6.6 | 0.863 | [−7.1, 20.3] | 7.4 (5) |
Chitosan | 4.7 | 0.578 | [−6.3, 15.6] | 11.8 (8) |
HAMC-PLGA | −0.8 | 0.196 | [−13.9, 12.3] | 7.4 (5) |
Other biomaterials | 10.7 | 0.001 | [1.3, 20] | 36.8 (25) |
comparisons= 68, p = 0.510, Tau2 = 78.4, I2 = 87.2%, adj R2 = 6.28% | ||||
C Improvement in axonal regeneration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Biomaterial name | Effect size (SD) | P > | t | | 95% Conf. Interval | Frequency % (n) |
PLGA | 0.9 | 0.901 | [−0.6, 2.4] | 9.5 (6) |
Collagen | 0.8 | 0.076 | [−0.1, 1.6] | 22 (14) |
HA-PLGA | 0.1 | 0.412 | [−1.4, 1.7] | 9.5 (6) |
Other biomaterials | 1.4 | 0.207 | [0.4, 2.5] | 59 (37) |
comparisons= 63, p = 0.240, Tau2 = 1.4, I2 = 72%, adj R2 = 0.41% | ||||
