BACKGROUND: A number of clinical trials addressing olfactory ensheathing cells for the treatment of chronic spinal cord injury have been conducted in the world, but the efficacy and safety are still controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation for chronic spinal cord injury, and to further compare its short-and long-term efficacy. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI and WanFang databases were searched at July 23, 2018 for retrieval of clinical trials addressing olfactory ensheathing cells in the treatment of chronic spinal cord injury. Types and cases of adverse events during the safety trial should be recorded in detail. In the enrolled studies, American Spinal Injury Association scale was used to assess the motor, light touch, and pinprick scores of spinal cord injury patients before and after cell transplantation. The follow-up time was recorded. Systematic evaluation of efficacy data was performed using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Both short-and long-term follow-up data showed that the neurological function of patients was significantly improved after olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation (P < 0.05) , and the results were homogeneous (I2 < 50％ and P> 0.1). However, the long-term efficacy was not as good as the short-term efficacy, which may be related to chronic rejection and olfactory ensheathing cell survival. The overall adverse event rate was 8.99％, and no complications associated with olfactory ensheathing cells occurred. These findings show that olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation is effective and safe in the treatment of chronic spinal cord injury, but it is still necessary to explore more minimally invasive approaches to reduce surgical complications. In addition, a large number of high-quality experiments and clinical trials are warranted to confirm factors affecting the long-term efficacy of olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation.

Osteoarthritis （OA） and stroke are common clinical diseases that reduce patients' quality of life and place a burden on families and society. Ruyi Zhenbaowan， a classic prescription in Tibetan medicine， have the functions of clearing heat， awakening the brain and opening orifices， relaxing tendons and promoting meridian circulation， and eliminating yellow water. Clinically， they are used to treat osteoarthritis， post-stroke sequelae， neuropathic pain， and other related conditions. Modern pharmacological studies have demonstrated their anti-inflammatory， analgesic， and nerve-repairing effects. However， current research remains insufficient regarding the appropriate indications， timing， and efficacy of this medicine in treating relevant diseases. To enhance clinicians' understanding of this medicine and promote its standardized and rational clinical use， a panel of national experts， including clinical specialists， Tibetan medicine practitioners， pharmacologists， and methodologists， formulated this consensus based on clinical experience and evidence-based practice. The Cochrane systematic review framework， the Grading of Recommendations Assessment， Development and Evaluation （GRADE） system， and the nominal group method were employed to generate seven graded recommendations and 19 consensus-based suggestions. These recommendations clearly define the key points in the clinical application of Ruyi Zhenbaowan， including therapeutic indications， dosage and administration， treatment duration， and medication safety. The consensus specifically addresses the clinical efficacy， appropriate timing of administration， dosage strategies， treatment cycles， and combination medication strategies for treating osteoarthritis and stroke and provides an overview of safety considerations. The aim is to provide standardized guidance for hospitals and healthcare institutions nationwide to ensure the rational application of Ruyi Zhenbaowan in the treatment of osteoarthritis and stroke， reduce medication-related risks， and further leverage its clinical advantages. This consensus has been approved and issued by the China Association of Chinese Medicine， with the standard number GS/CACM 369-2024.