Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29770199›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2018

Emerging therapies for hemophilia: controversies and unanswered questions.

Valder R Arruda, Bhavya S Doshi, Benjamin J Samelson-Jones

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Antithrombin lowering in hemophilia: a closer look at fitusiran.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Gene Therapy for Hemophilia: Facts and Quandaries in the 21st Century.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2020
    Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Valder R ArrudaThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8100-5481
Bhavya S DoshiThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Benjamin J Samelson-JonesThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Engineering cellular immunotherapy to modulate immune responses in hemophiliaR01HL137335 · NHLBI · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI MILONE, MICHAEL C., SAMELSON-JONES, BEN J · 2017 to 2020
$1.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL137335
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several new therapies for hemophilia have emerged in recent years. These strategies range from extended half-life factor replacement products and non-factor options with improved pharmacokinetic profiles to gene therapy aiming for phenotypic cure. While these products have the potential to change hemophilia care dramatically, several challenges and questions remain regarding broader applicability, long-term safety, and which option to pursue for each patient. Here, we review these emerging therapies with a focus on controversies and unanswered questions in each category.

Indexed as

EHLgene therapyhemophiliaNFT

Identifiers

PMID29770199
PMCPMC5931262

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.