ReviewBiomolecules2024
Erythropoietin: A Personal Alice in Wonderland Trip in the Shadow of the Giants.
Review in Biomolecules, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized Therapeutic Advances in Erythropoietin Signaling: From Anemia Management to Extensive Clinical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- The Importance of Hypoxia-Related to Hemoglobin Concentration in Breast Cancer.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2024Review
- Exploring the Biomedical Frontiers of Plant-Derived Nanoparticles: Synthesis and Biological Reactions.Pharmaceutics · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The identification of the hormone erythropoietin (EPO), which regulates red blood cell production, and its development into a pharmaceutical-grade product to treat anemia has been not only a herculean task but it has also been the first of its kind. As with all the successes, it had "winners" and "losers", but its history is mostly told by the winners who, over the years, have published excellent scientific and divulgate summaries on the subject, some of which are cited in this review. In addition, "success" is also due to the superb and dedicated work of numerous "crew" members, who often are under-represented and under-recognized when the story is told and often have several "dark sides" that are not told in the polished context of most reviews, but which raised the need for the development of the current legislation on biotherapeutics. Although I was marginally involved in the clinical development of erythropoietin, I have known on a personal basis most, if not all, the protagonists of the saga and had multiple opportunities to talk with them on the drive that supported their activities. Here, I will summarize the major steps in the development of erythropoietin as the first bioproduct to enter the clinic. Some of the "dark sides" will also be mentioned to emphasize what a beautiful achievement of humankind this process has been and how the various unforeseen challenges that emerged were progressively addressed in the interest of science and of the patient's wellbeing.
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.