ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2016
Achieving Informed Consent for Cellular Therapies: A Preclinical Translational Research Perspective on Regulations versus a Dose of Reality.
Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2016. 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.
- The Art of Stem Cell-Based Therapy.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Online seminars as an information source for direct-to-consumer stem cell therapy.Regenerative medicine · 2022Article
- Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): social, legal, and ethical considerations.Stem cell research & therapy · 2019Review
- Lessons Learned from Pioneering Neural Stem Cell Studies.Stem cell reports · 2017Article
- Response to StemCells Inc.Stem cell reports · 2017Article
- Preclinical Efficacy Failure of Human CNS-Derived Stem Cells for Use in the Pathway Study of Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.Stem cell reports · 2017Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
A central principle of bioethics is "subject autonomy," the acknowledgement of the primacy of the informed consent of the subject of research. Autonomy requires informed consent - the assurance that the research participant is informed about the possible risks and benefits of the research. In fact, informed consent is difficult when a single drug is being tested, although subjects have a baseline understanding of the testing of a pharmacological agent and the understanding that they can stop taking the drug if there were an adverse event. However, informed consent is even less easily achieved in the modern arena of complex new molecular and cellular therapies. In this article, we argue that as science confronts new issues such as transplantation of stem cell products, which may live within the participant for the rest of their lives, researchers must carefully consider and constantly re-examine how they properly inform subjects considering participation trials of these novel therapeutic strategies.For example, the manufacture of a vial of a cell product that consists of a collection of growing cells is very different than the production of a vial of identical pills, which can be presumed to be identical. The scientific concepts on which these cellular approaches are based may seem alien and incomprehensible to a research subject, who thinks of a clinical trial as simply the selection and testing of the most efficacious pharmaceutical agent already proven to work in preclinical animal studies. The research subject would be wrong.
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.