The Australian Citizens' Jury and Global Citizens' Assembly on Genome Editing.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Preventive Human Genome Editing and Enhancement: Candidate Criteria for Governance.The Hastings Center report · 2024
   Article
2. Public Engagement through Inclusive Deliberation: The Human Genome International Commission and Citizens' Juries.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023
   Article
3. Malleable Morality: Re-Shaping Moral Judgments in Health Policymaking.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.2023

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as