Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34735685›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2022

Treatment decision-making in sickle cell disease patients.

A Booth, V Bonham, M Porteus, K E Ormond

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

A BoothDepartment of Genetics, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9405-0831
V BonhamNational Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3649-5442
M PorteusDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3850-4648
K E OrmondDepartment of Genetics, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. kormond@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1033-0818

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a blood disorder with few treatment options currently available. However, in recent years, there has been much progress toward developing new therapies and curative treatments to help patients with SCD. Stem cell transplant remains the only approved curative treatment for SCD, but new clinical trials are being initiated using gene therapy and gene editing. We surveyed patients with sickle cell disease (N=9) about attitudes toward stem cell transplant, gene therapy to add a new healthy gene, gene editing to up-regulate fetal hemoglobin, or gene editing to correct the point mutation. The participants read a fact sheet that included objective information on each curative treatment. When asked which curative treatment each participant would choose, all four options were selected at least once. The most highly selected treatment was gene correction gene editing (N=4). Participants generally agreed that the four treatment options are beneficial but were more mixed in their thoughts on whether the options are dangerous. Reasons for selecting a particular curative treatment were variable, but the most selected reasons were perception of a cure (N=4) or decreased severity (N=4), and not needing a donor (N=4). We are at the beginning stages of understanding how patients with SCD make decisions about curative treatments. Currently, patients may be interested in any of the four possibilities for curative treatments, with gene correction gene editing as the most popular choice. Reasons for choosing one treatment over another are mixed.

Indexed as

CRISPRCurative treatmentsDecision-makingGene editingGene therapySickle cell disease

Identifiers

PMID34735685
PMCPMC8799810

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.