ArticleBioMed research international2014
A survey of Italian physicians' opinion about stem cells research: what doctors prefer and what the law requires.
Article in BioMed research international, 2014. 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.
- Knowledge and attitude of Malaysian university students towards regenerative medicine therapy and their clinical implications: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Knowledge and attitude of dental school faculties towards stem cell therapies and their applications.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Public awareness and understanding of stem cell treatments available in Saudi Arabia and their trust in hospitals and research centers involved in stem cell research-a cross sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- An Infodemic of Misinformation on Stem Cell Therapy Among the Population of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Mesenchymal stem cells in neurodegenerative diseases: Opinion review on ethical dilemmas.World journal of stem cells · 2020Review
- Assessment of knowledge and attitude toward stem cells and their implications in dentistry among recent graduates of dental schools in Saudi Arabia.The Saudi dental journal · 2019Article
- Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: A Roadmap about Good Clinical Practice and Patient Care.Stem cells international · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the Italian physicians' knowledge/information level about the therapeutic potential of stem cells, the research choice between embryonic and cordonal stem cells, and the preference between autologous and heterologous storage of cordonal stem cells, we performed a national survey. The questionnaire--distributed to 3361 physicians--involved physicians of different religious orientations and of different medical specialities. Most of the physicians involved (67%) were Catholics, and the majority were gynaecologists and paediatricians (43%) who are mainly in charge to inform future mothers about the possibility of cordonal stem cells conservation. The majority of the physicians interviewed do not have specific knowledge about stem cells (59%), most of them having only generic information (92%). The largest part of physicians prefer to use umbilical cord blood cells rather than embryonic stem cells. Nevertheless, a large percentage of physicians were in favour of embryo research, especially when embryos are supernumerary (44% versus 34%). Eighty-seven % of the physicians interviewed proved to have a general knowledge about stem cells and believe in their therapeutic potential. They prefer research on cordonal stem cells rather than on embryo stem cells. Although they are in favour of heterologous stem cells donation, they still prefer cryopreservation for personal use.
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.