Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26416684›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015

Progressing a human embryonic stem-cell-based regenerative medicine therapy towards the clinic.

Paul Whiting, Julie Kerby, Peter Coffey, Lyndon da Cruz, Ruth McKernan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. DNA Transposition at Work.Chemical reviews · 2016
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Paul WhitingPfizer Neusentis, Granta Park, Cambridge CB21 6GS, UK paul.whiting@pfizer.com.
Julie KerbyPfizer Neusentis, Granta Park, Cambridge CB21 6GS, UK.
Peter CoffeyThe London Project to Cure Blindness, Division of ORBIT, Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London EC1V 9EL, UK.
Lyndon da CruzThe London Project to Cure Blindness, Division of ORBIT, Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London EC1V 9EL, UK.
Ruth McKernanPfizer Neusentis, Granta Park, Cambridge CB21 6GS, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the first publication of the derivation of human embryonic stem cells in 1998, there has been hope and expectation that this technology will lead to a wave of regenerative medicine therapies with the potential to revolutionize our approach to managing certain diseases. Despite significant resources in this direction, the path to the clinic for an embryonic stem-cell-based regenerative medicine therapy has not proven straightforward, though in the past few years progress has been made. Here, with a focus upon retinal disease, we discuss the current status of the development of such therapies. We also highlight some of our own experiences of progressing a retinal pigment epithelium cell replacement therapy towards the clinic.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyEmbryonic Stem CellsHumansMacular DegenerationRegenerative MedicineRetinal Pigment EpitheliumTranslational Research, Biomedicalpluripotent stem cellregenerative medicineretina

Identifiers

PMID26416684
PMCPMC4634002

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.