ArticleThe Journal of community and supportive oncology2014
Practice gaps and barriers to optimal care of hematologic malignancies in the United States.
Article in The Journal of community and supportive oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTreating patients with hematologic malignancies can be challenging for physicians because of the rapidly evolving standards of care and relatively low incidence of these diseases.
objectiveTo identify clinical challenges among hematologists and medical oncologists regarding the provision of care to patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), or B-cell lymphomas. Methods Hematologists and medical oncologists in active practice in the United States and who have a case load of ≥ 1 patient a year with CML, ALL, or B-cell lymphoma were recruited. The initial qualitative phase consisted of an online case-based survey followed by an interview exploring the contextual and behavioral factors that influence treatment decisions (n = 27). The analysis of qualitative data then informed a quantitative phase, in which 121 participants completed an online survey composed of case vignettes, multiple choice, and semantic differential rating scale questions. The respondents' answers were compared with recommendations from treatment guidelines and faculty experts.
resultsA higher frequency of bone marrow biopsies was reported compared with expert faculty recommendations by 74% of oncologists. Many respondents failed to recognize the clinical relevance of BCR-ABL mutations other than T315I. Respondents reported perceiving difficulties in individualizing treatment and interpreting response to treatment in patients with ALL and B-cell lymphomas. Fewer than 30% of respondents recognized the mechanisms of action of 5 of the 9 promising investigational agents presented. LIMITATIONS: Participant self-selection bias is a possibility because participation was voluntary. Practice gaps are not based on clinical data, but hypothetical case situations and self-report.
conclusionsFindings from this study can guide education to address the identified challenges in caring for patients with hematologic malignancies and improving patient care.
fundingThis needs assessment was financially supported with an educational research grant from Pfizer Medical Education Group to the Annenberg Center for Health Sciences at Eisenhower.
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.