Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Nature, 2005 Aug 11;436(7052):754.
    PMID: 16094324
    Matched MeSH terms: Research/manpower
  2. Cyranoski D
    Nature, 2005 Aug 4;436(7051):620-1.
    PMID: 16079812
    Matched MeSH terms: Research/manpower*
  3. Peirce K, Roberts P, Ali J, Coombes J, Matson P
    Hum Fertil (Camb), 2018 Sep;21(3):174-182.
    PMID: 28589740 DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2017.1334131
    Scientists working in assisted reproduction [members of Scientists in Reproductive Technology (SIRT) Australia, and subscribers of the online forums EmbryoMail and Quartec] were invited to complete an online questionnaire on the use of human blood products in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). A total of 260 started the questionnaire, with 208 (80%) completing it. A total of 62% of respondents had worked in human ART ≥8 years and 68% had post-graduate qualifications. The majority (82%) reported using products of animal or human origin, with 75% knowing why protein was added to culture media and 41% not worried by this. Almost half (49%) of respondents were unaware of regulations surrounding the use of human blood products in health care and 70% were unaware of adverse events involving human blood products in human ART. Most respondents (70%) indicated that they were not concerned about infections such as hepatitis, but agents such as prions were a cause for concern (57%). A total of 57% of respondents were unaware of alternatives, but 77% would use a suitable alternative. Using blood products in human ART is surrounded by a lack of awareness, often independent of respondents' qualifications or experience. A better understanding of these products and possible alternatives is required if informed decisions about their suitability are to be made.
    Matched MeSH terms: Biomedical Research/manpower
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links