ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2020
Adapting the 14-day rule for embryo research to encompass evolving technologies.
Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ethical, legal, regulatory, and policy issues concerning embryoids: a systematic review of the literature.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Pooled it
- Current strategies and opportunities to manufacture cells for modeling human lungs.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2020Pooled it
- The modeling of human implantation and early placentation: achievements and perspectives.Human reproduction update · 2025Review
- Current Status of Synthetic Mammalian Embryo Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- The beginning of becoming a human.Aging · 2024Review
- Stem Cell-Derived Microfluidic Amniotic Sac Embryoid (μPASE).Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- In Vitro Embryogenesis and Gastrulation Using Stem Cells in Mice and Humans.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Why we should not extend the 14-day rule.Journal of medical ethics · 2021Article
- Human embryo research, stem cell-derived embryo models and in vitro gametogenesis: Considerations leading to the revised ISSCR guidelines.Stem cell reports · 2021Review
- ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2021 update.Stem cell reports · 2021Review
- Review
- The ethics of human-embryoids model: a call for consistency.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Review
- A microfluidics-based stem cell model of early post-implantation human development.Nature protocols · 2021Article
- Embryo experimentation: is there a case for moving beyond the '14-day rule'.Monash bioethics review · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We consider the scientific evidence that research on in-vitro development of embryos beyond 14 days is necessary. We then examine potential new developments in the use of stem cells to make embryoids or synthetic human entities with embryo-like features, and consider whether they also require legal control. Next, we consider the arguments advanced against extending the 14-day period during which research on human embryos is currently permitted, and find none of them to be convincing. We end by proposing a new objective limit that could serve as a mechanism for regulating the use of embryos for research
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.