ArticleClinical transplantation2015
The case for xenotransplantation.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2015. 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, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of PERV-C superinfection resistance using HA-tagged viruses.Retrovirology · 2023Article
- "You cannot stay in the laboratory forever"*: Taking pig kidney xenotransplantation from the laboratory to the clinic.EBioMedicine · 2021Review
- Porcine lymphotropic herpesvirus DNA detection in multiple organs of pigs in Brazil.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2020Article
- Renal xenotransplantation: experimental progress and clinical prospects.Kidney international · 2017Review
- Modifying the sugar icing on the transplantation cake.Glycobiology · 2016Review
- The role of genetically engineered pigs in xenotransplantation research.The Journal of pathology · 2016Review
- Recent advances in understanding xenotransplantation: implications for the clinic.Expert review of clinical immunology · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The availability of organs and cells from deceased humans for transplantation is not meeting the demand. Xenotransplantation, specifically the transplantation of organs and cells from genetically engineered pigs, could resolve this problem. Diabetic monkeys have remained normoglycemic and insulin-independent after pig islet transplantation for >one yr, and a pig heterotopic (non-life-supporting) heart transplant recently reached the one-yr milestone in a baboon. With these encouraging results, why is it that, with some notable exceptions, research into xenotransplantation has received relatively little support by industry, government funding agencies, and medical charitable foundations? Industry appears reluctant to support research that will take more than two to three yr to come to clinical trial, and the funding agencies appear to have been "distracted" by the current appeal of stem cell technology and regenerative medicine. It has only been the willingness of living donors to provide organs that has significantly increased the number of transplants being performed worldwide. These altruistic donations are not without risk of morbidity and even mortality to the donor. Although with the best of intentions, we are therefore traversing the Hippocratic Oath of doctors to "do no harm." This should be a stimulus to fund exploration of alternative approaches, including xenotransplantation.
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.