ReviewStem cell reports2023
Difficulties in ensuring review quality performed by committees under the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine in Japan.
Review in Stem cell reports, 2023. 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Basic Points to Consider for Cell Storage under the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine in Japan.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Amendment ofRegenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Review Mechanisms for Advanced Medical Therapies in Japan and Thailand: A Proposal for the Use of Expert Clinical Benefit Assessments at Designated Institutions.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Amendments to ASRM: Can we move away from a "Therapeutic Haven"?Stem cell reports · 2024Article
- Brief summary of the regulatory frameworks of regenerative medicine therapies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Does the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine in Japan ensure "safety"?: Implications of low adverse event reporting.Stem cell reports · 2023Article
- Oncologists' Views and Communication Practices Regarding Unproven High-Cost Cancer Interventions in Private Medical Practice: A Questionnaire Survey.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We outlined five studies regarding the quality of the review by committees based on the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine. The findings raise serious concerns about the independence, integrity, and quality of reviews of therapeutic plans by these committees with inappropriately close relationships to medical institutions and companies.
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.