ReviewTherapeutic advances in hematology2018
The role of patient and healthcare professionals in the era of new hemophilia treatments in developed and developing countries.
Review in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The State of Shared Decision-Making in Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Narrative Review and Health Care Provider Perspective.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing Engagement to Support Shared Decision Making Within Haemophilia: Development of Materials for People With Haemophilia, Caregivers and Healthcare Professionals.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2025Article
- Evaluating Gene Therapy as a Potential Paradigm Shift in Treating Severe Hemophilia.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2023Review
- Hemophilia Patient Experience in a Physical Therapy-Guided Health Education Intervention: A Mixed-Method Design.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Patient-relevant health outcomes for hemophilia care: Development of an international standard outcomes set.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021Article
- Optimizing language for effective communication of gene therapy concepts with hemophilia patients: a qualitative study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of oral health and treatment necessities in hemophilia individuals of Davangere population - A case control study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Article
- Shared decision making: Does a physician's decision-making style affect patient participation in treatment choices for primary immunodeficiency?Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2019Article
- How to discuss gene therapy for haemophilia? A patient and physician perspective.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2019Review
- UK vs US physician decision-making in the treatment of haemophilia.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical decisions in hemophilia care are primarily related to the type of factor replacement and treatment regimen. With the growing number of treatment options for patients with hemophilia, decision making is more complex and requires careful consideration of benefits, risks, and patient goals. Shared decision making and decision-aid tools facilitate patient and healthcare provider communication. In this review, the overall role of shared decision making in medicine is outlined, with special emphasis on models for practical implementation. Examples of shared decision making in hemophilia are outlined, and application to new therapeutics is discussed through a case-based approach.
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.