ArticleBlood advances2021
Impact of a grant program to spur advances in sickle cell disease research.
Article in Blood advances, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers for the diagnosis and phenotyping of acute chest syndrome in patients with sickle cell disease.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2026Review
- Sponsorship of Clinical Trials Related to the Shoulder and Elbow: Trends Over Time and Comparative Analysis of Trial Characteristics by Sponsorship Type.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Defining global strategies to improve outcomes in sickle cell disease: a Lancet Haematology Commission.The Lancet. Haematology · 2023Review
- Assessing knowledge of sickle cell disease and health beliefs on premarital genetic screening among healthcare trainees at a tertiary institution: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
More than 20 years ago, clinical trials and federal grant support for sickle cell disease (SCD) research were not on par with support for other genetic diseases. Faced with the opportunity to spur research and advance treatments for SCD, and at the recommendation of advisors, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) offered an SCD research funding opportunity starting in 2009 through its Innovations in Clinical Research Awards (ICRA) program. Twenty-eight new grants of $450 000 for direct costs over 3 years and 7 renewals were awarded, for a total investment of $17 million. Only about half the research teams garnered follow-on funding directly related to their ICRA projects, but the financial return on the research investment was substantial (∼4 times the original $17 million or 300%). All but 1 of the ICRA investigative teams published original research reports that acknowledged DDCF as a source of funding; the median number of publications per team was 3. Major innovations in the diagnosis and treatment of SCD included but were not limited to a demonstration that genetic modification of BCL11A enhancer is a potentially important treatment modality, establishment that plerixafor mobilization is safe and effective for those with SCD, development and validation of a new diagnostic called SCD BioChip, and evidence that hydroxyurea treatment is safe and efficacious in African children. These outcomes show that relatively small research grants can have a substantial return on investment and result in significant advances for a disease such as SCD.
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.