ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Knowledge About Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in Relation to Gender Among Healthcare Professionals and in the General Population.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Age reprogramming: Innovations and ethical considerations for prolonged longevity (Review).Biomedical reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInduced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are derived by reprogramming adult somatic cells using a forced expression of four specific transcription factors in a highly controlled artificial environment. The aim of this paper is to examine the knowledge about these cells of the general population and the population of health workers in relation to gender.
methodsThe research was designed as a cohort study conducted with a validated questionnaire to assess knowledge about iPSCs. Respondents were people over 18 years of age on the territory of the cities of Belgrade and Kragujevac in Serbia.
resultsThe study surveyed a total of 1,047 respondents, 560 (53.5%) women and 487 (46.5%) men. Statistically significant differences were observed for both genders. Women from both populations were better informed, more often agreed to treatment with iPSCs, more often supported further research, and were willing to take further education about iPSCs.
conclusionComparing men and women from both populations, we found that men and women health workers showed greater knowledge compared to the general population. Level of knowledge and attitudes of the public can have multiple effects on further research emphasizing the importance of the support of public opinion about this type of treatment.
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.