Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25232185›Full record

ArticleStem cells translational medicine2014

A case for crowd sourcing in stem cell research.

Olaf M Dekkers, Christine L Mummery, Ton J Rabelink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells translational medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Olaf M DekkersDepartments of Clinical Epidemiology, Medicine, and o.m.dekkers@lumc.nl.
Christine L MummeryAnatomy and Developmental Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ton J RabelinkMedicine, and.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thousands of patients and placebo-treated controls have been included in many clinical trials of stem cell therapy over the last decade or so, but often the study groups have been small. Their scientific value may therefore be limited and their ethical justification questionable. Would "crowd sourcing" for data sharing be a means of increasing the collective value of clinical trials? Here, we make a case for open access of all data emerging from stem cell studies (trials but also observational studies) independent of whether they are investigator-initiated or commercially driven.

Indexed as

Bioethical IssuesCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCrowdsourcingHumansInformation DisseminationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStem Cell Research

Identifiers

PMID25232185
PMCPMC4214850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.