ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2011
Do we still need human embryonic stem cells for stem cell-based therapies? Epistemic and ethical aspects.
Review in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ethical Implications of Tissue Engineering for Regenerative Purposes: A Systematic Review.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Neural crest-derived mesenchymal stem cells: Fates and perspectives.World journal of stem cells · 2025Review
- Ethical Aspects of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and Alzheimer's Disease: Potentials and Challenges of a Seemingly Harmless Method.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports · 2023Article
- Myt1l induced direct reprogramming of pericytes into cholinergic neurons.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2018Article
- Neurotrophin Signaling and Stem Cells-Implications for Neurodegenerative Diseases and Stem Cell Therapy.Molecular neurobiology · 2017Review
- Accelerating stem cell trials for Alzheimer's disease.The Lancet. Neurology · 2016Review
- Ethical Issues for Clinical Studies That use Human Embryonic Stem Cells: The 2014 Revisions to the Japanese Guidelines.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2015Review
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
While scientific community disagrees about similarities and differences between human embryonic stem (hES) cells and human induced pluripotent stem (hiPS) cells, some politicians embrace translational hiPS cell research as a replacement for translational hES cell research. We examine the ethical relevance of the main differences between hES and hiPS cell-based therapies and discuss whether, given the current state of knowledge, certain differences are essential. We discuss whether well-founded preferences can be made in hypothetical scenarios with varying levels of patient safety, treatment efficacy, treatment accessibility and ethical controversy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21461713What 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.