ArticleThe CRISPR journal2019
Perspectives of Sickle Cell Disease Stakeholders on Heritable Genome Editing.
Article in The CRISPR journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Balancing benefits and burdens: a systematic review on ethical and social dimensions of gene and cell therapies for hereditary blood diseases.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing.PloS one · 2026Article
- An exploration of the perspectives of Dutch adults experiencing a genetic condition on human germline gene editing.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Experts' perspectives on human gene editing in Switzerland.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing Psychosocial Risk and Resilience to Support Readiness for Gene Therapy in Sickle Cell Disease: A Consensus Statement.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2022Article
- Decision-making about gene therapy in transfusion dependent thalassemia.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Article
- Primary caregiver decision-making in hematopoietic cell transplantation and gene therapy for sickle cell disease.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2021Article
- Integrating Datasets on Public Health and Clinical Aspects of Sickle Cell Disease for Effective Community-Based Research and Practice.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Harnessing the potential of CRISPR-based platforms to advance the field of hospital medicine.Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in CRISPR technology and the announcement of the first gene-edited babies have sparked a global dialogue about the future of heritable genome editing (HGE). There has been an international call for public input to inform a substantive debate about benefits and risks of HGE. This study investigates the views of the sickle cell disease (SCD) community. We utilized a mixed-methods approach to examine SCD stakeholders' views in the United States. We found SCD stakeholders hold a nuanced view of HGE. Assuming the technology is shown to be safe and effective, they are just as supportive of HGE as genetics professionals, but more supportive than the general public. However, they are also concerned about the potential implications of HGE, despite this support. As discourse surrounding HGE advances, it is crucial to engage disease communities and other key stakeholders whose lives could be altered by these interventions.
Indexed as
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.