ArticleHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia2024
A novel gene editing lexicon strategy for the haemophilia community: Research plan for development and preliminary results.
Article in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, 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.
- Building a gene editing lexicon: a model for rare and inherited disorders.Gene therapy · 2026Article
- The Bleeding Disorders Research Collaborative.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2025Review
- Clinical perspective: Advancing hemophilia treatment through gene therapy approaches.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025Review
- Development of a novel gene editing lexicon for hemophilia: methodology and results.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- A novel gene editing lexicon strategy for the haemophilia community: Research plan for development and preliminary results.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDespite the progress in gene editing platforms like CRISPR/Cas9 with the potential to transform the standard of care for haemophilia, the language used to explain and discuss gene editing is not aligned across the haemophilia community. Here, we present the objective and rationale for developing a clear, consistent, and globally aligned gene editing lexicon to address these communication gaps.
methodsEffectively communicating complex gene editing concepts requires a clear and consistent vocabulary. Through collaboration with a diversity of haemophilia stakeholders, our main goal is to develop an accurate, informative lexicon which avoids overpromising or highly technical terminology. Using an innovative process, representatives from several patient and scientific haemophilia organizations and select biotechnology companies will develop and refine language concepts to be tested with approximately seventy participants across the United States of America, United Kingdom, and Germany. Participants will include lived experience experts (LEEs) and haematologists. The process will be overseen by the Lexicon Steering Committee of global experts from leading scientific and patient organizations in the haemophilia and gene editing fields.
resultsInitial feedback provided a robust foundation and rationale for building clear, consistent language around gene editing. This lexicon development framework will allow for increased understanding across the haemophilia community, including the development of valid informed consent and shared decision-making materials.
conclusionResults provide important building blocks for stimuli development and highlight the need for a novel gene editing lexicon. In the next phase, language stimuli will be tested with LEEs and haematologists to better understand audience preferences and help shape the final lexicon.
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.