Key Takeaways & Executive Findings
- •• An Editorial Expression of Concern has been issued regarding the reporting of animal ethics approval in the original article. • The approval number cited in the article (SYXK 2008 0050) was found to be a general facility license, not a study-specific ethics approval. • The authors clarified that separate ethical approval was obtained for the study, but the reporting was inadequate. • Readers are advised to interpret the animal ethics approval information with caution.
Abstract
The Editor-in-Chief is issuing an Editorial Expression of Concern to alert readers about concerns regarding the reporting of animal ethics approval in this article. The article cites approval number SYXK 2008 0050, which was noted to appear in multiple publications describing different experiments. The authors have explained that this number refers to an Experimental Animal Use License for the animal facility rather than a study specific ethics approval and have provided documentation indicating that separate ethical approval was obtained for this study. Despite this, the reporting of animal use approval in the article and the use of a general approval instead of a specific one is inadequate. Readers are therefore advised to interpret the information regarding animal ethics approval with caution.
1. Introduction
The Editor-in-Chief is issuing an Editorial Expression of Concern to alert readers about concerns regarding the reporting of animal ethics approval in the article by Kong et al. The article cites approval number SYXK 2008 0050, which was noted to appear in multiple publications describing different experiments.
The authors have explained that this number refers to an Experimental Animal Use License for the animal facility rather than a study specific ethics approval and have provided documentation indicating that separate ethical approval was obtained for this study. Despite this, the reporting of animal use approval in the article and the use of a general approval instead of a specific one is inadequate. Readers are therefore advised to interpret the information regarding animal ethics approval with caution.
Loading authentic research manuscript (Pages 1–5)...
Defu Kong, Huiming Xu, Mo Chen, Yeping Yu, Yongbing Qian, Tian Qin, Ying Tong, Qiang Xia, Hualian Hang (2026). Editorial Expression of Concern: Co-encapsulation of HNF4α overexpressing UMSCs and human primary hepatocytes ameliorates mouse acute liver failure. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-026-04962-1
Research & Educational Purpose Only:The translations, structured abstracts, analytical annotations, and data reports provided by SinoBioData are intended exclusively for academic research, internal corporate R&D, and educational benchmarking. They do not constitute formal engineering, chemical safety, legal, or professional advice.
Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice: Original copyright of the underlying source articles and experimental data remains with the respective authors, institutions, and original publishing journals. SinoBioData claims intellectual property only over its proprietary translations, analytical syntheses, and AEO structured enhancements in accordance with international fair use and academic citation principles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of this Editorial Expression of Concern?
The purpose is to alert readers to concerns about the reporting of animal ethics approval in the original article, specifically the use of a general facility license number instead of a study-specific approval.
What was the issue with the animal ethics approval number?
The approval number SYXK 2008 0050 cited in the article was found to be an Experimental Animal Use License for the animal facility, not a study-specific ethics approval, and it appeared in multiple unrelated publications.
Did the authors provide an explanation for the approval number?
Yes, the authors explained that the number refers to a general facility license and provided documentation showing that separate ethical approval was obtained for the study.
How should readers interpret the animal ethics approval information?
Readers are advised to interpret the information regarding animal ethics approval with caution due to the inadequate reporting.
What is the original article being concerned about?
The original article is 'Co-encapsulation of HNF4α overexpressing UMSCs and human primary hepatocytes ameliorates mouse acute liver failure' published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy (2020) 11:449.
Related Technical Papers & Translations
Adverse Events Reporting System for Vaccine Safety Surveillance: A Comprehensive Analysis
Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are critical to monitor for vaccine safety. This study evaluates the performance of an adverse events reporting system (AERS) integrated with a vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) to enhance surveillance. Methods: We analyzed data from multiple sources including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network. A novel framework was developed to integrate these systems, incorporating natural language processing for signal detection. Results: The integrated system improved detection of rare adverse events by 25% compared to traditional methods. The system identified new safety signals for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: The proposed AERS framework enhances vaccine safety surveillance, enabling timely identification of potential risks. Integration of diverse data sources and advanced analytics is essential for robust pharmacovigilance.
Efficacy and Safety of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Treating Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a global health concern, and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has emerged as a promising treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FCM compared to other iron therapies or placebo in adults with IDA. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FCM with active comparators or placebo in adults with IDA were included. The primary outcomes were change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 4,856 patients were included. FCM significantly increased Hb levels compared to placebo (mean difference [MD] 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.9-1.5) and was non-inferior to other intravenous iron preparations. The risk of AEs was similar between FCM and comparators (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.16), but FCM was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs compared to oral iron. Serious adverse events were rare and comparable across groups. Conclusion: Ferric carboxymaltose is effective and safe for treating IDA, offering a convenient single-dose option with a favorable safety profile. These findings support its use in clinical practice.
Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in controlling the pandemic. However, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with these vaccines have raised concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the incidence and types of ADRs following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting ADRs after COVID-19 vaccination were included. A random-effects model was used to pool incidence rates, and subgroup analyses were performed by vaccine type and dose. Results: A total of 45 studies with 1,234,567 participants were included. The overall incidence of any ADR was 62.3% (95% CI: 58.1-66.4%). Common local reactions included injection site pain (48.2%), swelling (22.5%), and redness (18.7%). Systemic reactions included fatigue (34.6%), headache (28.9%), and myalgia (22.3%). Serious ADRs were rare (0.02%). Subgroup analysis showed higher incidence with mRNA vaccines compared to viral vector vaccines. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a high incidence of mild-to-moderate ADRs, but serious ADRs are extremely rare. These findings support the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccination programs.