Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31094982›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume2019

International Expert Consensus on a Cell Therapy Communication Tool: DOSES.

Iain R Murray, Jorge Chahla, Marc R Safran, Aaron J Krych, Daniel B F Saris, Arnold I Caplan, Robert F LaPrade, Cell Therapies Communication Expert Group

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cell therapy for cartilage repair.Emerging topics in life sciences · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Iain R MurrayDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Jorge ChahlaRush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Marc R SafranDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, California.
Aaron J KrychDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Daniel B F SarisDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Arnold I CaplanSkeletal Research Center, Biology Department, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Robert F LaPradeThe Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado.
Cell Therapies Communication Expert Group

Funding

TR&D-4: Growing Tissue in the Scalable, Modular, Automated, and Closed (SMAC) FoundryP41EB021911 · NIBIB · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI HARIHARA BASKARAN · 2016 to 2026
$13.9M
Medical Research Council G1000816NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB021911
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe lack of a standardized system for describing cell therapies acts as a barrier to advancement in clinical and basic research and practice. The aim of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on strategies to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The secondary aim was to develop a consensus among experts on the contents of a standardized tool for describing cell therapies.

methodsThe need for expert consensus on strategies to improve cell therapy communication was confirmed at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/National Institutes of Health Optimizing Clinical Use of Biologics Symposium in 2018. A working group of 6 experts convened an international consensus process involving clinicians and basic scientists using validated Delphi methodology. This iterative process was used to define statements on communication of cell therapies and develop a standardized tool for describing cell therapies.

resultsThirty-four experts completed 3 rounds survey with use of the Delphi process. After 3 rounds, 27 statements relating to existing nomenclature, solutions to improve communication, ideal characteristics of a framework, mandatory elements of a new framework, and future work to facilitate application reached consensus with >80% agreement and <5% disagreement. Consensus was reached on the contents of a tool for improving standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. This tool, dubbed "DOSES," is based on the reporting of 5 core items: donor (i.e., autologous, allogeneic, xenogeneic), origin of tissue, separation from other cell types/preparation method, exhibited cell characteristics associated with behavior, and the site of delivery.

conclusionsThis study has established expert consensus on the communication of cell therapies. The DOSES tool has been developed to improve standardization and transparency in describing cell therapies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The DOSES tool for describing cell therapies can be utilized by researchers, clinicians, regulators, and industry professionals to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The use of this tool may allow clinicians and patients to better understand the characteristics of current and future cell preparations.

Indexed as

Cell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCommunicationDelphi TechniqueHumansTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID31094982
PMCPMC7292498

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.