Abstract
Exosomes, diminutive extracellular vesicles, are integral to intercellular communication, harbouring potential for applications in regenerative medicine and aesthetic interventions. The field, however, grapples with the complexities of harmonising exosome characterisation protocols and safeguarding therapeutic integrity. In this scholarly overview, systematic adherence to the Cochrane Collaboration and Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews guidelines was observed, scrutinising the congruence of exosome-related therapies with the Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles standards delineated by the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles, alongside criteria set forth by the International Society for Cell Therapy and the International Society for Stem Cell Research. A meticulous search strategy spanning databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane database was employed to encapsulate studies pertinent to the isolation, characterisation, and functional assessment of exosomes. The initial search yielded 225 articles, of which 17 systematic reviews were selected based on predefined criteria, encompassing 556 primary studies. Notwithstanding the acknowledged therapeutic promise of exosome modalities, the synthesis illuminated a prevalent deficiency in adherence to established reporting and experimental benchmarks, notably in exosome source characterisation and bioactive constituent delineation. A critical appraisal employing the AMSTAR-2 tool underscored a pervasive shortfall in methodological rigour. This review accentuates the imperative for stringent methodological standardisation within exosome research to fortify the validity and reproducibility of empirical findings. Amidst the burgeoning therapeutic optimism, the discipline must rectify methodological disparities and comply with regulatory mandates, ensuring the ethically sound and scientifically robust advancement of exosome-based therapeutic modalities. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.