ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Development of a novel gene editing lexicon for hemophilia: methodology and results.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. 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.
- Building a gene editing lexicon: a model for rare and inherited disorders.Gene therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-associated protein 9 (Cas9)-based targeted gene editing platforms are being developed to treat genetic diseases like hemophilia. Such novel therapy involves complex concepts and terminology that require aligned language to engage key stakeholders in the hemophilia community. Thus, a globally aligned gene editing lexicon - a consistent language to communicate the fundamentals of gene editing in hemophilia, designed to be credible and accessible for people with hemophilia and caregivers while avoiding unnecessary complexity - is required to address this need. Objectives: To establish an aligned language and communications framework that facilitates informed consent and shared decision-making regarding gene editing and treatment considerations in hemophilia. Methods: Through an innovative partnership with global experts in hemophilia, gene editing, and biotechnology, initial insights were gathered via interviews, workshops, and analysis of existing language within the hemophilia community. Qualitative research involving lived experience experts (people with hemophilia and caregivers; Results: Key themes included insights into audience mindsets, guiding language principles, and optimized terminology for key topics like gene editing concepts and posttreatment considerations. Audience mindsets revealed cautious optimism around gene therapy, with more skepticism around gene editing. Guiding language principles indicated a preference for plainspoken over technical language, definitions that link to patient benefits, and explanations that highlight the precise nature of gene editing. Conclusion: This collaborative approach ensures broad adoption of the lexicon within the hemophilia community and readiness for beta testing.
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.