ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2015
Ethical Issues for Clinical Studies That use Human Embryonic Stem Cells: The 2014 Revisions to the Japanese Guidelines.
Review in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recommended Ethical Safeguards on Fertilization of Human Germ Cells Derived from Pluripotent Stem Cells Solely for Research Purposes.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in clinical studies has been expanding in recent years. The application of hESCs in clinical studies raises ethical issues from a different standpoint compared with the use of other types of stem cells. In Japan, the Guidelines on the Derivation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, and Guidelines on the Distribution and Utilization of Human Embryonic Stem Cells had been revised for clinical studies in 2014. In the revised guidelines, the method for protection of personal information was changed to offer the choice between unlinkable anonymization and linkable anonymization, to enable the use of information on diseases suffered by donors and the assurance of traceability for safety. Procedures for re-consent are generally prohibited out of consideration for donors' feelings. However, obtaining re-consent is permitted when consent for re-consent has been received in advance and approval has been given by an ethical review board, in which case the donors may be contacted. Incidental findings obtained from hESCs are not disclosed individually to donors, while the research results should be actively published for the common good. These guidelines have enabled the derivation, distribution, and use of hESCs for clinical studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26129923What 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.