ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2013
Reply to Townes-Anderson: RPE65 gene therapy does not alter the natural history of retinal degeneration.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Classification and Growth Rate of Chorioretinal Atrophy after Voretigene Neparvovec-Rzyl for RPE65-Mediated Retinal Degeneration.Ophthalmology. Retina · 2024Article
- What Is Next for Retinal Gene Therapy?Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.