ArticleBone marrow transplantation2009
Ethical reasoning about patient eligibility in allogeneic BMT based on psychosocial criteria.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Caregiver Paradigm in Hematopoietic Cell Transplant: Current and Future Directions.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2025Review
- Content review of pediatric ethics consultations at a cancer center.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2019Article
- Patient eligibility for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a review of patient-associated variables.Bone marrow transplantation · 2019Review
- Psychosocial risk predicts high readmission rates for hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.Bone marrow transplantation · 2018Article
- A challenge to discriminating psychosocial eligibility criteria: exploring the ethical justification for excluding patients with psychosocial risk factors from hematopoietic cell transplantation.Bone marrow transplantation · 2018Article
- Utility of the psychosocial assessment of candidates for transplantation (PACT) scale in allogeneic BMT.Bone marrow transplantation · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chairpersons of the hospital ethics committees (HECs) and BMT clinicians were compared with regard to their willingness to proceed with allogeneic BMT given select psychosocial risk factors. A self-administered questionnaire was sent to 62 HEC chairpersons at hospitals with an accredited BMT program; the response rate was 37%. Items included background information, followed by six case vignettes from a 2006 national survey on which BMT physicians, nurses and social workers agreed not to proceed with allogeneic BMT on the basis of the following risk factors: suicidal ideation; use of addictive, illicit drugs; history of non-compliance; absence of a caregiver; alcoholism; and mild dementia from early onset of Alzheimer's disease. Opinions regarding transplant differed in one case only, in a patient with mild dementia; 27% of HEC chairpersons recommended not proceeding with BMT, which was significantly lower than that of nurses (68%, P<0.001), physicians (63.5%, P<0.001) and social workers (51.9%, P=0.05). Qualitative data show patterns of informal reasoning, linking transplant decisions to patient's responsibility for their psychosocial risk factor(s), as well as to medical benefit and outcome.
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.