Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29199283›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2018

Am I ready for CRISPR? A user's guide to genetic screens.

John G Doench

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 260 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
260citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

260 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Synthetic Regulatory Genomics.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Cas9eLife · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

200 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

John G DoenchGenetic Perturbation Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exciting new technologies are often self-limiting in their rollout, as access to state-of-the-art instrumentation or the need for years of hands-on experience, for better or worse, ensures slow adoption by the community. CRISPR technology, however, presents the opposite dilemma, where the simplicity of the system enabled the parallel development of many applications, improvements and derivatives, and new users are now presented with an almost paralyzing abundance of choices. This Review intends to guide users through the process of applying CRISPR technology to their biological problems of interest, especially in the context of discovering gene function at scale.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsAnimalsGene EditingGenetic TestingHumans

Identifiers

PMID29199283

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.