Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21985808›Full record

ReviewThe Indian journal of medical research2011

Umbilical cord blood: current status & promise for the future.

David McKenna, Jayesh Sheth

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Review in The Indian journal of medical research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
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

2 authors.

David McKennaFoundation for Research in Genetics & Endocrinology, Ahmedabad, India.
Jayesh Sheth

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Umbilical cord blood (UCB) has been shown to be a suitable source of haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) for haematopoietic reconstitution. An increase in the number of UCB transplants indicates an expansion of utility in a broad spectrum of disease conditions. Along with the advantages, UCB also has limitations, and hence several investigators are working to further optimize UCB for this use. Beyond haematopoietic transplantation, additional potential applications of UCB include immunotherapy, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. UCB banking has improved with time largely due to involvement of professional organizations and their published standards. However, accreditation of these organizations remains voluntary, and in India three of ten banks are public with the remaining being private. Only one public and one private bank are American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) accredited in India. Government agencies need to provide regulatory and safety oversight, which is lacking in serveral countries. Public policy regarding UCB is in its infancy throughout most of the world. Ethical issues, including access to UCB banking and use as therapy for diseases other than haematological and metabolic disorders are in the early phase of trials and remain speculative.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem CellsBlood BankingBlood BanksCord Blood Stem Cell TransplantationFetal BloodHumansIndia

Identifiers

PMID21985808
PMCPMC3193706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.