Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29697749›Full record

ArticleBritish medical bulletin2018

How to talk about genome editing.

Sandy Starr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British medical bulletin, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sandy StarrProgress Educational Trust, 140 Grays Inn Road, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Human genome editing is an area of growing prominence, with many potential therapeutic applications. Sources of data: A project by two UK charities, whose participants included fertility sector patients and practitioners and also people affected by genetic disease and rare disease. Scientific research into, and wider discussion of, genomics and genome editing. Areas of agreement: There is a need for improved public and professional understanding of genome editing. Areas of controversy: The way genome editing is discussed is often inconsistent and confusing. Simply defining and explaining the term 'genome' can present challenges. Growing points: There are approaches that lend themselves to achieving greater clarity and coherence in discussion of genome editing. Areas timely for developing research: People's understanding should ideally be able to withstand and evolve alongside current developments in genome editing, rather than being tied firmly to specific aspects of genome editing (which may in future be supplanted).

Indexed as

CommunicationGene EditingHealth EducationBiomedical ResearchGenetic TherapyGenomicsHumans

Identifiers

PMID29697749
PMCPMC5998984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.