ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2016
Research involving pediatric stem cell donors: A way forward.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The most suitable donor for younger patients who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the research setting is frequently a minor sibling. These cases raise the question of whether minors who serve as stem cell donors for research subjects should be regarded as research subjects themselves. Regarding pediatric donors as research subjects ensures that an Institutional Review Boards reviews their involvement and determines whether it is appropriate. Yet, Institutional Review Boards must follow the US regulations for pediatric research, which were designed for patients and healthy volunteers, not for healthy donors. As a result, regarding pediatric donors as research subjects also can pose unnecessary obstacles to appropriate and potentially life-saving research. This article considers a new way to address this dilemma. The federal research regulations allow for waiver of some or all of the included requirements when they are unnecessary for a study or a class of studies. We argue that this option offers a way to ensure that the involvement of pediatric donors receives sufficient review and approval without inadvertently undermining valuable and potentially life-saving research.
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.