ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
From Bench to Bedside: Ethical and Clinical Best Practices for Genome Editing Applications.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanomaterials for the Prevention, Detection, and Treatment of Pharyngeal Human Papillomavirus Infection: A Translational Roadmap.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- CRISPR/Cas9-Based Genome Editing: Understanding Differences in DNA Repair Pathways, Profiles, and Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Review
- Advances in CRISPR Base Editing: From Molecular Evolution to Therapeutic Applications in Genomic Medicine.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026Review
- From pathophysiology to therapy: molecular mechanisms of stem cell and extracellular vesicle-mediated repair in diabetic peripheral neuropathy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Functional genomics-guided design of CAR-T and CAR-NK therapies in hematological malignancies: aligning cellular engineering with immune escape and microenvironmental resistance.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome editing (GE) has transformed medicine by allowing precise changes to DNA, offering potential treatments for a range of inherited and acquired disorders. Several technologies support these advances, including zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based systems, of which the latter has emerged as the most accessible, versatile, and popular. While GE holds great promise, its clinical use requires careful attention to safety, ethics and regulatory standards. Inadvertent on- and off-target DNA alterations and unintended modification of non-target cells pose major technical challenges, while bioethical considerations and the need for harmonized safety standards create regulatory challenges. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), as regulatory agencies for key advanced therapy markets, provide detailed guidance on these aspects, emphasizing rigorous preclinical testing, patient monitoring, ethical consent, and compliance with legal frameworks. This concise review summarizes what is currently published in the scientific literature and recommended by regulatory agencies, providing an overview of the responsible clinical application of GE, with emphasis on patient safety, adherence to regulatory guidance, and ethical practice.
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.