Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29880919›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2018

Advances and innovations in haemophilia treatment.

Rob Peters, Tim Harris

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Laboratory Challenges in the Era of Novel Haemophilia Therapies.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Hemostats in the clinic.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024
    Review
  15. Development of mRNA Lipid Nanoparticles: Targeting and Therapeutic Aspects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rob PetersBioverativ, a Sanofi company, Waltham, MA, USA.
Tim HarrisBioverativ, a Sanofi company, Waltham, MA, USA.
Sanofi (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Haemophilia is a rare disease for which the approved therapeutic options have remained virtually unchanged for 50 years. In the past decade, however, there has been an explosion of innovation in the treatment options that are either in development or have been approved for haemophilia, including engineered clotting factors and an extensive pipeline of new approaches and modalities. Several of these new modalities, especially gene therapy, demonstrate proof of principle in haemophilia but could have broader applications. These advances, in combination with better diagnostics, are now enabling clinicians to improve the standard of care for people with haemophilia. The different mechanisms of action and modifications used in these therapies have implications for their safe and efficacious use, which must be balanced with their therapeutic utility. This Review focuses on the biological aspects of the most advanced and innovative approaches for haemophilia treatment and considers their future use.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnticoagulantsBlood Coagulation FactorsHemophilia AHumansAnticoagulantsBlood Coagulation Factors

Identifiers

PMID29880919
OpenAlexW2807217137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.