ArticleTransfusion2026
The status of cell and gene therapy education in medical schools-An international survey.
Article in Transfusion, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCell and gene therapy (CGT) has emerged as a distinct medical field with more than 50 "Food and Drug Administration (FDA)"-approved products treating conditions from leukemia to sickle cell disease. Despite this therapeutic revolution and the field's inherent complexity, the status of CGT education in medical schools remains unknown. STUDY DESIGNS AND
methodsThis study explores the current state of CGT education in medical school curricula internationally and evaluates educators' perspectives on training adequacy and curriculum development needs. An international survey of 504 medical schools across six continents was conducted between September 2023 and April 2024. The 20-question poll assessed institutional characteristics, CGT educational requirements and structure, faculty resources, curriculum content, and educator perspectives. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all responses.
resultsForty-six medical schools from 21 countries responded (9.1% response rate). Only 41% (19/46) offered CGT education, predominantly as optional courses (53%) during third and fourth years. Most programs relied on 2-4 faculty with competing responsibilities; only two institutions had dedicated CGT educators. Three schools reported standardized curricula, and none formally assessed student learning. Most educators (56%) considered current CGT education inadequate, and 78% advocated expansion. Nearly two-thirds (64%) agreed to integrate professionally developed online CGT courses.
conclusionMedical education lags substantially behind the clinical adoption of CGT. The gap threatens future physicians' ability to offer optimal care. Strong educator consensus on inadequacy and interest in standardized resources signals an opportunity for intervention through collaborative curriculum initiatives.
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.