ArticleXenotransplantation
Pilot Survey of Attitudes Toward Xenotransplantation Among Nursing Students in London, UK.
Article in Xenotransplantation. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSolid organ xenotransplantation has been approved for clinical trials in the United States. Because of the role of nurses in patient decision-making, it is important to understand the attitudes of the future nursing workforce toward xenotransplantation. This pilot study aimed to investigate the attitudes of adult nursing students toward xenotransplantation.
methodsA cross-sectional survey design was used. The online pilot survey was completed by 33 undergraduate adult nursing students at one university in London, England. A minority of the hospitals that students may have had a clinical placement in had a transplant unit. The protocol for this study was reviewed and approved by the university research ethics panel.
resultsFifty-two percent of students viewed xenotransplantation positively when the risks and outcomes were equal to allotransplantation. Students were most positive toward accepting a liver from an animal source and the most negative toward accepting a heart. There was limited concern about the potential psychosocial effects of xenotransplantation. Students believed that xenotransplantation involved several risks, including immunologic, infection, and raising religious, ethical, and philosophical problems.
conclusionWhile participants had a moderately positive view toward xenotransplantation when the risks and outcomes were equal to allotransplantation-this dropped significantly if it produced worse outcomes. Their primary concerns about xenotransplantation were its potential infection risks as well as the ethical, philosophical, and religious problems it raises. The fact that the source organs are genetically engineered made students view xenotransplantation more favorably.
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.