ReviewJournal of medical ethics2006
Xenotransplantation: a bioethical evaluation.
Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moral approval of xenotransplantation in Egypt: associations with religion, attitudes towards animals and demographic factors.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Decellularized peripheral nerve grafts by a modified protocol for repair of rat sciatic nerve injury.Neural regeneration research · 2021Article
- CRISPR/Cas Technology in Pig-to-Human Xenotransplantation Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Corneal xenotransplantation: Where are we standing?Progress in retinal and eye research · 2021Review
- Attitudes to Clinical Pig Kidney Xenotransplantation among Medical Providers and Patients.Kidney360 · 2020Article
- Characteristics of α-Gal epitope, anti-Gal antibody, α1,3 galactosyltransferase and its clinical exploitation (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2016Review
- Infection barriers to successful xenotransplantation focusing on porcine endogenous retroviruses.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allograft shortage is a formidable obstacle in organ transplantation. Xenotransplantation, the interspecies transplantation of cells, tissues, and organs, or ex vivo interspecies exchange between cells, tissues, and organs is a frequently suggested alternative to this allograft shortage. As xenotransplantation steadily improves into a viable allotransplantation alternative, several bioethical considerations coalesce. Such considerations include the Helsinki declaration's guarantee of patients' rights to privacy; political red tape that may select for undermined socioeconomic groups as the first recipients of xenografts; industry incentives in xenotransplantation investments; conflicts of interest when a clinician supervises a patient as a research subject; the psychosocial impact of transplantation on the xenograft recipient, and the rights of animals. This review illuminates these issues through a conglomeration of expert opinion and relevant experimental studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.