ReviewBlood reviews2015
From evidence to clinical practice in blood and marrow transplantation.
Review in Blood reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying Implementation Science in the Field of Transplant and Cellular Therapy.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2024Review
- How do we improve the translation of new evidence into the practice of hematopoietic cell transplantation and cellular therapy?Blood reviews · 2023Review
- Systematic Reviews in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy: Considerations and Guidance from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Late Effects and Quality of Life Working Committee.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2021Article
- Review
- A New Standard in Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis? An Introduction to Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 1703.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical practice in the field of blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) has evolved over time, as a result of thousands of basic and clinical research studies. While it appears that scientific discovery and adaptive clinical research may be well integrated in case of BMT, there is lack of sufficient literature to definitively understand the process of translation of evidence to practice and if it may be selective . In this review, examples from BMT and other areas of medicine are used to highlight the state of and potential barriers to evidence uptake. Strategies to help improve knowledge transfer are discussed and the role of existing framework provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry (CIBMTR) to monitor uptake and BMT Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) to enhance translation of evidence into practice is highlighted.
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.