ReviewCurrent opinion in organ transplantation2013
New and old technologies for organ replacement.
Review in Current opinion in organ transplantation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tele-ICU enabled management of an organ donor in an under-resourced setting.BMJ case reports · 2024Article
- External Vs Internal e-Referrals: Results from a Nationwide Epidemiological Study Utilizing Secondary Collected Data.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- In Situ Characterization of Polycaprolactone Fiber Response to Quasi-Static Tensile Loading in Scanning Electron Microscopy.Polymers · 2021Article
- Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles: Regenerative Potential and Challenges.Biology · 2021Review
- Supercritical carbon dioxide decellularization of plant material to generate 3D biocompatible scaffolds.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Healing effects of a protein scaffold loaded with adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells on radiation-induced vaginal injury in rats.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- Review
- Ethics and Well-Being: Ages 45-64: 70 is the New 50.Journal of healthcare, science and the humanities · 2019Article
- Article
- Toward a solution for cardiac failure in the newborn.Xenotransplantation · 2018Review
- Opportunity cost in the economic evaluation of da Vinci robotic assisted surgery.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2016Article
- Regeneration of uterine horns in rats using collagen scaffolds loaded with human embryonic stem cell-derived endometrium-like cells.Tissue engineering. Part A · 2015Article
- Bioengineering kidneys for transplantation.Seminars in nephrology · 2014Review
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
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe demand for organ transplantation has increased over time, increasingly exceeding the supply of organs. Whether and how new or old technologies separately or together could be applied to replacing organs will thus remain a question of importance. RECENT
findingsEstimating how the demand for organ transplantation will evolve over the decades and the need to bring forward and test new technologies will help establish the dimensions of the problem and the priorities for investigation. Pluripotent stem cells can in principle expand to sufficient numbers, differentiate, and assemble complex and functional organs. However, the devising of effective and reliable means to coax the stem cells to do so remains beyond the current grasp. SUMMARY: Given the time during which novel therapies are devised and applied, which organ transplantation reaches to 2-3 decades, one can anticipate the need for organ replacement will grow dramatically, but advances in science and technology will overcome the hurdles in generating new organs. Whether these advances will address the needs and priorities of society, however, is unclear.
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.