Trial reportBone marrow transplantation2014
Optimization of health-care organization and perceived improvement of patient comfort by switching from intra-venous BU four-times-daily infusions to a once-daily administration scheme in adult hematopoietic stem cell recipients.
Trial report in Bone marrow transplantation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown an equivalent pharmacokinetic profile between four-times-daily (4QD) and once-daily (QD) administration of intra-venous (IV) BU, without increased toxicity. We assess the impact of a switch in IV BU from a 4QD to a QD schedule, in terms of health-care organization, staff working conditions, quality of care dispensed and perceived patient comfort. Clinicians, nurses and pharmacists from nine allogeneic transplantation units in five European countries were interviewed face to face. Overall perception of QD versus 4QD BU was very positive. Both administration schemes were evaluated to be equally efficaciousZ. QD BU was perceived to be safer and more convenient. Clinicians and nurses perceived that patient comfort was improved, due to fewer complications associated with repeated infusions, and avoiding night infusions associated with stress, anxiety and decreased quality of sleep. Switching from 4QD to QD BU had a significant impact on health-care organization, with a better integration in the overall management and usual timelines in the pharmacies and transplantation units. Time spent to prepare and administer BU was significantly reduced, leading to potential financial savings that merit further assessment and would be of particular interest in the current economic climate.
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.