ReviewGene therapy2013
Gene therapy for deafness.
Review in Gene therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling a novelActa biochimica et biophysica Sinica · 2024Article
- Emerging Gene Therapies for Genetic Hearing Loss.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2017Review
- In vivo genetic manipulation of inner ear connexin expression by bovine adeno-associated viral vectors.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and collective and individual cell migration regulate epithelial changes in the amikacin-damaged organ of Corti.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2017Article
- Rescue of Hearing by Gene Delivery to Inner-Ear Hair Cells Using Exosome-Associated AAV.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2017Article
- Hearing aids: indications, technology, adaptation, and quality control.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
- Tmc gene therapy restores auditory function in deaf mice.Science translational medicine · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Hearing loss is the most common sensory deficit in humans and can result from genetic, environmental or combined etiologies that prevent normal function of the cochlea, the peripheral sensory organ. Recent advances in understanding the genetic pathways that are critical for the development and maintenance of cochlear function, as well as the molecular mechanisms that underlie cell trauma and death, have provided exciting opportunities for modulating these pathways to correct genetic mutations, to enhance the endogenous protective pathways for hearing preservation and to regenerate lost sensory cells with the possibility of ameliorating hearing loss. A number of recent animal studies have used gene-based therapies in innovative ways toward realizing these goals. With further refinement, some of the protective and regenerative approaches reviewed here may become clinically applicable.
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.