ReviewBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2011
Informed consent for cord blood donation. A theoretical and empirical study.
Review in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of Informed Consent Practices around the Time of Childbirth: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Ethical and deontological issues in Transfusion Medicine.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2013Review
- Autologous cord blood harvesting in North Eastern Italy: ethical questions and emerging hopes for curing diabetes and celiac disease.International journal of general medicine · 2012Article
- Ethical and legal considerations regarding the ownership and commercial use of human biological materials and their derivatives.Journal of blood medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesUmbilical cord blood (CB) banking and therapeutic use raise several ethical issues: medical indications, legal framework, public versus private biobanks, autologous versus allogeneic use, ownership, commercialisation, quality assurance and many others. Surrogate informed consent is one of the most notable controversial ethical issues. The aim of this study was to analyse and compare informed consent forms for CB collection, storage and use in the 18 accredited biobanks of the Italian Network. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe first part of the article gives a brief overview of the scientific framework, the comparison of allogeneic and autologous use and Italian regulations. In the second part the contents of the consent forms from the 18 Italian biobanks are compared with the "NetCord-FACT International Standards for Cord Blood Collection, Banking, and Release for Administration".
resultsMost of the Italian consent forms differ significantly from the NetCord-FACT Standards, with regards both to formal and substantial aspects.
conclusionItalian forms for CB collection, storage and use need standardisation to meet international criteria.
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.