ReviewNPJ Regenerative medicine2017
A blueprint for the next generation of ELSI research, training, and outreach in regenerative medicine.
Review in NPJ Regenerative medicine, 2017. 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 Ethical Implications of Tissue Engineering for Regenerative Purposes: A Systematic Review.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Newborn screening and biobanking for preventable genetic disorders in Mongolia: A developing country perspective.Regenerative therapy · 2026Review
- Perspectives of Research Ethics Committees on the Challenges of Human Genomic Research Participation in Ethiopia.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- From responsibility to responsibilization in stem cell research: An ethical framework.Stem cell reports · 2025Article
- Clinical translation of tissue-engineered oesophageal grafts: are patients ready for us?Pediatric surgery international · 2024Article
- Regenerative medicine curriculum for next-generation physicians.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2019Review
- Overcoming barriers to facilitate the regulation of multi-centre regenerative medicine clinical trials.Stem cell research & therapy · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regenerative medicine has attracted the interest of scientists, physicians, and patient communities, and as well as policy-makers and the broader public given related ethical, legal, and social implications. Here we examine past initiatives in the ethical, legal and social implications arena in regenerative medicine, and offer our views on actionable priorities for the future in six key areas: capacity building, policy, engagement with industry, resaerch ethics, communication, and community building.
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.