↓ Skip to main content

Does the FDA have regulatory authority over adult autologous stem cell therapies? 21 CFR 1271 and the emperor's new clothes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does the FDA have regulatory authority over adult autologous stem cell therapies? 21 CFR 1271 and the emperor's new clothes
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-10-60
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Freeman, Mitchell Fuerst

Abstract

FDA has recently asserted that many autologous cell therapies once considered the practice of medicine are in fact drugs. These changes began with the creation of new sections of 21 CFR 1271 and a subsequent one word change where the FDA, without public commentary, altered a single word in its regulatory language regarding cell and tissue based therapies that asserted the authority to classify autologous tissue as drugs. The bright line between medical care and drug production can be delineated in many ways, but a simple metric that defines the dichotomy is the consent status of the patient. In healthcare, a patient can either be consented individually for a medical procedure or exposed to an unconsented risk where regulatory assurances are already in place. These new FDA policies apply rules meant to keep drugs safe in a drug factory (unconsented mass production risks) to individually consented surgical procedures. We argue that there is little societal benefit to these changes and that they are already stifling medical innovation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 6%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Engineering 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 3 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#5,847,736
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#874
of 3,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,257
of 160,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#12
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 160,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.