ReviewBone research2019
The potential risks of C-C chemokine receptor 5-edited babies in bone development.
Review in Bone research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Influence BetweenAIDS research and human retroviruses · 2023Review
- Human Germline Gene Editing from Maslahah Perspective: The Case of the World's First Gene Edited Babies.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Genetic variation analyses indicate conserved SARS-CoV-2-host interaction and varied genetic adaptation in immune response factors in modern human evolution.Development, growth & differentiation · 2021Review
- Beyond HIV infection: Neglected and varied impacts of CCR5 and CCR5Δ32 on viral diseases.Virus research · 2020Review
- Article
- The G protein coupled receptor CCR5 in cancer.Advances in cancer research · 2020Review
- Prevalence of CCR5delta32 in Northeastern Iran.BMC medical genetics · 2019Article
- A functional interaction between the CCR5 and CD34 molecules expressed in hematopoietic cells can support (or even promote) the development of cancer.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.