ArticleProtein & cell2016
Human germ line editing-roles and responsibilities.
Article in Protein & cell, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2018Pooled it
- Base editing: advances and therapeutic opportunities.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2020Review
- The Ethics of Gene Editing from an Islamic Perspective: A Focus on the Recent Gene Editing of the Chinese Twins.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.Human reproduction open · 2018Article
- Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Review
- Recent developments in genetics and medically-assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applicationsHuman reproduction open · 2017Article
- Emerging ethical perspectives in the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats genome-editing debate.Personalized medicine · 2016Review
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
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.