ArticleJournal of oncology practice2013
Assessment of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies in oncology: summary of the oncology risk evaluation and mitigation strategies workshop.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building a Sustainable Comprehensive Multiple Myeloma Program in Western Kenya.JCO global oncology · 2021Article
- Adaptation for Regulatory Application: A Content Analysis of FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Assessment Plans (2014-2018) Using RE-AIM.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Pharmacovigilance in oncology.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Review
- Effectiveness of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for Lenalidomide and Thalidomide: Patient Comprehension and Knowledge Retention.Drug safety · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To address oncology community stakeholder concerns regarding implementation of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program, ASCO sponsored a workshop to gather REMS experiences from representatives of professional societies, patient organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Stakeholder presentations and topical panel discussions addressed REMS program development, implementation processes, and practice experiences, as well as oncology drug safety processes. A draft REMS decision tool prepared by the ASCO REMS Steering Committee was presented for group discussion with facilitated, goal-oriented feedback. THE WORKSHOP IDENTIFIED SEVERAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM CURRENT ONCOLOGY REMS: (1) the release of personal health information to drug sponsors as a condition for gaining access to a needed drug; (2) risk information that is not tailored-and therefore not accessible-to all literacy levels; (3) exclusive focus on drug risk, thereby affecting patient-provider treatment discussion; (4) REMS elements that do not consider existing, widely practiced oncology safety standards, professional training, and experience; and (5) administrative burdens that divert the health care team from direct patient care activities and, in some cases, could limit patient access to important therapies. Increased provider and professional society participation should form the basis of ongoing and future REMS standardization discussions with the FDA to work toward overall improvement of risk communication.
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.