ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2021
Content and Method of Information for Participants in Clinical Studies With Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs).
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community and bioethicists' perspectives on iPSC research with biobanked samples collected using broad consent.Stem cell reports · 2025Review
- Advances in Cytotoxicity Testing: From In Vitro Assays to In Silico Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Clinical translation of human iPSC technologies: advances, safety concerns, and future directions.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Exploring the promising potential of induced pluripotent stem cells in cancer research and therapy.Molecular cancer · 2023Review
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
Research with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) involves specific ethical challenges, which should be addressed in the informed consent process. Up to now, little concern has been paid to the practice of information in iPSC-clinical studies. In order to fill this research gap, we have searched the documentation of the Research Ethics Committee at Ulm University from the years 2007 to 2019. In our previous research, we have identified 11 items for evaluation of the process of information in iPSC research. We used these items to analyze content and form of information provided for participants in the iPSC studies conducted at Ulm University and Ulm University Hospital in Germany. All analyzed studies provide general information regarding the study's aim, method, and collection of donor's personal data and specimen. The information for participants in these studies adheres to general guidelines for research involving human subjects; however, in several areas fails to take into account the specific nature of research with iPSCs. The majority of analyzed studies fail to provide information about possible individual consequences connected with genetic research, such as the possibility of re-identification of the donor or incidental findings acquired during research. Missing is also information about the possibility of future studies involving reproductive research or transplantation of cells and organs. The donor information process in all analyzed studies is conducted in form of the information sheet and oral information. The results of our research show that the process of informed consent in iPSC research should be updated as new developments emerge in this area. However, comprehension of information should not be jeopardized through information overload. Effective communication of essential information requires improved information methods tailored to the needs of participants, such as video animations, interactive consent modules or social media instruments.
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.