Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35620726›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022

20 Years of Legislation - How Australia Has Responded to the Challenge of Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms in the Clinic.

Gabrielle M O'Sullivan, Joshua G Philips, Heidi J Mitchell, Michael Dornbusch, John E J Rasko

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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. Review
  2. Review
  3. Advancing sustainable practices withAIMS microbiology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gabrielle M O'SullivanResearch Ethics and Governance Office, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Joshua G PhilipsOffice of the Gene Technology Regulator, Australian Government Department of Health, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Heidi J MitchellOffice of the Gene Technology Regulator, Australian Government Department of Health, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Michael DornbuschOffice of the Gene Technology Regulator, Australian Government Department of Health, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
John E J RaskoDepartment of Cell and Molecular Therapies, RPA Hospital, SLHD, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

•In contrast to the prior voluntary system, since 2001, gene technology in Australia has been regulated under a legislated national Gene Technology Regulatory Scheme which is administered by the Gene Technology Regulator.•The Scheme provides science-based assessment of the potential risks of gene technology to the health and safety of people and the environment.•It complements the role of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration which regulates all therapeutic products in Australia to ensure they are safe and effective.•Recent reforms to the Scheme contribute to, and anticipate, the continued safe development and delivery of gene-based human therapeutics in Australia as a successful model for other jurisdictions.

Indexed as

clinical medicineethics and lawgene technologygene technology regulationgene therapyrisk managementtechnological and regulatory advances

Identifiers

PMID35620726
PMCPMC9127347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.