ArticleBone marrow transplantation2013
Potential adult sibling stem cell donors' perceptions and opinions regarding an information and care model.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2013. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Visual Methods in Information Procedures for Stem Cell Recipients and Donors.Turkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology · 2017Trial
- Decision-making experience for second donation in unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donors: a descriptive qualitative study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Hematopoietic Stem Cell Donors' Experiences of Information and Side-Effects During the First Year After Donation-A Swedish National Study.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2025Article
- Hematopoietic cell transplant nurse coordinators' perceptions of related donor care: a European survey from the EBMT Nurses Group.Bone marrow transplantation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first international recommendations and guidelines for the care of sibling stem cell donors were established in 2010, and have not yet been evaluated. However, a model for information and care of adult potential sibling stem cell donors (the IC model) developed and introduced at the Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, in 2005 conforms closely to them. The IC model aims to protect the privacy of potential donors, support and respect their free choice, and identify quickly those unwilling or unable to donate and thus minimize delay in seeking alternative donors. To evaluate the IC model a questionnaire survey in 2010 gathered the perceptions and views on information provision; influences over decision making; and care provision under the IC model of 148 adult siblings informed about SCT donation, and asked to undergo HLA-typing since September 2005 at the hospital. The results suggest the IC model works well but highlights areas for improvement, such as in delivery of HLA typing results to non-matched siblings, and a need to further prevent complicating influence from health professionals and relatives on the decision to undergo HLA typing. Thus improved, the IC model could provide the groundwork for other SCT units seeking to implement the recommendations and guidelines.
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.