The future of ex vivo hematopoietic stem cell gene editing: what's next.

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.

1. Harnessing Lessons from Gel-Based and Advanced Biomaterial Therapeutics to Enable Direct Cellular Reprogramming.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Review
2. Engraftment Outcome of CRISPR/Cas9-Edited Hematopoietic Stem Cells for Genetic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Evidence.Journal of hematology · 2026
   Article
3. From Bench to Bedside: Ethical and Clinical Best Practices for Genome Editing Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
   Review
4. Long-read sequencing and next-generation CRISPR editors: a unified pipeline for rare disease precision medicine with ethical and regulatory perspectives.Frontiers in medicine · 2026
   Review
5. Landscape ofMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.