Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16147540›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2005

Cell transplantation for diabetes.

Roy Calne

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Introduction: immunoregulation: harnessing T cell biology for therapeutic benefit.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2005
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roy CalneDepartment of Surgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. cpr1000@cam.ac.uk
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For 30 years there has been experimental work aimed at transplanting islets for the treatment of diabetes with a view to curing the disease and preventing the secondary complications. Many technical difficulties were experienced, first in isolating the islets without damaging them, and second in finding a suitable place to inject them, but until recently the results of a vascularized pancreas transplant have been superior to islet transplantation. In 2000, the group in Edmonton, headed by Shapiro, published encouraging results using a different immunosuppression in transplanting patients earlier in the course of their disease than had been attempted previously. The results were excellent at a year and good at 2 years in patients with Type I diabetes, however there was the rather worrying attrition at five years. Nevertheless, the Edmonton observations were proof of concept and have intensified interest in treating diabetes and other diseases where a specific protein synthesis was required by cell transplantation and/or genetic engineering. The recent interest in embryonic stem cells extenuated these efforts and progress is being made in defining the difficulties, which are greater than most workers would have predicted. In this review, the subject is discussed explaining where progress needs to be made in order to provide treatment that would be of value to patients.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusGenetic EngineeringHumansImmunosuppression TherapyInsulinIslets of Langerhans TransplantationStem CellsTransfectionInsulin

Identifiers

PMID16147540
PMCPMC1569544
OpenAlexW2073767301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.