ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2015
A Need for Renewed and Cohesive US Policy on Cord Blood Banking.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stem Cell Therapies for Cerebral Palsy and Autism Spectrum Disorder-A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- The construction of the evaluation system of nurses' post-training and the application of the system in 25 grade-A general hospitals in China.Nursing open · 2021Article
- Placenta-derived mesenchymal stem cells (P-MSCs) for COVID-19 pneumonia-a regenerative dogma.Stem cell investigation · 2021Review
- A New Approach to Cerebral Palsy Treatment: Discussion of the Effective Components of Umbilical Cord Blood and its Mechanisms of Action.Cell transplantation · 2019Review
- Biological Products: Cellular Therapy and FDA Approved Products.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2019Review
- Factors Influencing the Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell Industry: An Evolving Treatment Landscape.Stem cells translational medicine · 2018Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood (CB) are used to treat more than 80 different diseases and are a standard treatment for many types of leukemias, lymphomas, myelodysplasias, and inherited immune system disorders. CB transplants have been carried out in humans for over 25 years, and hundreds of clinical trials are currently underway investigating CB's therapeutic potential for a wide range of disorders, including autism, diabetes, cerebral palsy, and spinal cord injury. Extensive storage facilities have been established in the United States and around the world to collect, test, and freeze CB for later use in medical procedures. However, a divide between two different banking models-public versus private-has emerged, presenting several policy challenges. While the Food and Drug Administration currently regulates CB storage and use in the United States, other state and federal guidelines on CB education, awareness, and ethical considerations remain variable, and no mandatory international guidelines exist. In addition, federal funding for an important CB collection initiative that specifically targets minority populations is set to expire by the end of FY2015. To help organize and coordinate efforts across the United States and other nations, policymakers should implement regulations for: high quality standards for both private and public CB banks, a commitment to ethical practices, and an investment in educational campaigns and training programs for all steps of the CB banking process.
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.