ReviewStem cell investigation2017
Engineering cord blood to improve engraftment after cord blood transplant.
Review in Stem cell investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Allogeneic stem cell transplantation with omidubicel in sickle cell disease.Blood advances · 2021Trial
- Clinical impact of early microchimerism dynamics after transplantation with enhanced dual-conditioning regimen in hematological diseases.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Omidubicel for Hematopoietic Cell Transplants: Considerations for Patients and Treatment Outcomes.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Review
- Optimizing Blood Stem Cell Transplants Through Cellular Engineering.Blood cell therapy · 2022Review
- Extracellular vesicles from human iPSCs enhance reconstitution capacity of cord blood-derived hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells.Leukemia · 2021Article
- Cord blood research, banking, and transplantation: achievements, challenges, and perspectives.Bone marrow transplantation · 2020Review
- Unrelated cord blood transplantation and post-transplant cyclophosphamide.Haematologica · 2019Article
- Genetically enhanced T lymphocytes and the intensive care unit.Oncotarget · 2018Review
- Sickle Cell Disease: Advances in Treatment.Ochsner journal · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Umbilical cord blood transplant (CBT) has traditionally been associated with slower engraftment of neutrophils, delayed immune reconstitution and consequently higher risk of infections as compared with peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) or bone marrow (BM) transplants. This is primarily due to low numbers of total nucleated cells (TNCs) and the naive nature of CB immune cells. The use of double unit CB transplant (DCBT) increases the total cell dose in the graft, but it still does not produce as rapid engraftment as seen with PBPC or even BM transplants. Herein, we discuss strategies to improve engraftment after CBT. We describe methods of (I) expansion of CB graft
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.