SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Hybrid umbilical cord blood banking: literature review.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A selection model for umbilical cord blood units with high isolation yield of total nucleated and CD34+ cells.Stem cells translational medicine · 2026Article
- Umbilical cord blood: a comprehensive review of protective and restorative properties in clinical applications - a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Neonatal factors impacting umbilical cord blood unit characteristics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Implementation of a novel hybrid cord blood banking model within a private-public-partnership.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Pregnant Women and Hospital Staff Regarding Umbilical Cord Blood Banking: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInterest gaps between public and private umbilical cord blood banks have led to the introduction of hybrid banking options. Hybrid models combine features of private and public banks as well as interests of parents, children and of patients, in order to find an optimized solution. While several different models of hybrid banks exist, there is a lack of literature about this novel model of cord blood stem cell banking. Therefore, the aim of this literature review is to assess different options of umbilical cord blood banking and whether hybrid banking could be a valuable alternative to the existing public and private cord blood banking models.
methodsWe performed a systematic literature search, using five main databases. Five hybrid models regarding their advantages as well as their challenges are discussed in this review.
resultsWe found that a wealth of literature exists about public cord blood banking, while private and hybrid banking are understudied. Different modalities of hybrid cord blood banking are being described in several publications, providing the basis to assess different advantages and disadvantages as well as practicability.
conclusionHybrid banks, especially the sequential model, seem to have potential as an alternative to the existing banking models worldwide. A previously conducted survey among pregnant women showed a preference for hybrid banking, if such an option was available. Nevertheless, opinions among stakeholders differ and more research is needed to evaluate, if hybrid banking provides the expected benefits.
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.