ReviewFrontiers in medicine2021
Clinical Outcomes of Unrelated Umbilical Cord Blood Graft vs. Haploidentical Donor Transplantation: Critical Issues for an Adequate Comparison.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunophenotypic and Functional Interindividual Variability in Banked Cord Blood Cells: Insights for Advanced Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unrelated umbilical cord blood (UCB) and haploidentical grafts have been used for allogeneic hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) transplantation in patients without a related or non-related human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched donor. The less stringent HLA-matching requirement in both sources raises an important possibility for patients in need of urgent transplantation to treat any hematological disease. Selection of the best alternative donor is a difficult task that will depend on donor criteria, center experience, patient disease conditions, and risk, among others. Most comparisons available in scientific publications between both graft sources are obtained from retrospective analysis in wide time windows and a heterogeneous number of patients, types of disease, disease stages, previous treatments, graft source, conditioning regimen, graft vs. host disease (GVHD) approach, and evaluable endpoints. There is also an evident impact of the economic traits since low-income countries must consider less expensive treatments to satisfy the needs of the patients in the most effective possible path. Therefore, haploidentical transplantation could be an appealing option, even though it has not been completely established if any chronic treatment derived from the procedure could become a higher cost. In Colombia, there is a huge experience in UCB transplantation especially in units of pediatric transplantation where benign indications are more common than in adults. Due to the availability of a public UCB bank and HLA high-resolution typing in Colombia, there is a wider inventory of cord blood donors. Unfortunately, we do not have an unrelated bone marrow donor registry, so UCB is an important source along with haploidentical transplantation to consider in decision-making. This minireview focuses on comparing the main issues associated with the use of both HSCP sources and provides tools for physicians who face the difficult decision between these alternative donor sources.
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.