ArticlePloS one2018
Limited value of routine follow-up visits in chronic lymphocytic leukemia managed initially by watch and wait: A North Denmark population-based study.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Laboratory Indicators of Pediatric Leukemia and Neuroblastoma in Musculoskeletal Presentations: A Retrospective Study From a Resource-Limited Setting.European journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Clinical follow-up using patient-reported outcome (PRO) for patients with lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in a hematological outpatient clinic: a Danish prospective study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Tuning the B-CLL microenvironment: evidence for BAG3 protein- mediated regulation of stromal fibroblasts activity.Cell death discovery · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe majority of newly diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients are followed initially by watch and wait (WAW). Clinical practice varies and the value of frequent follow-up visits remains unclear. Thus, in this study we investigated the clinical value of follow-up visits for patients with CLL.
methodsWe collected data from diagnosis and follow-up visits for patients diagnosed with CLL and managed by WAW in the North Denmark Region between 2007-2014. High- and low-risk group patients were determined by Binet stage, IgVH status, and cytogenetics at diagnosis. The effect of risk group allocation on the probability of receiving CLL-directed treatment within two years was included in a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and blood test results.
results273 patients were included in the study with a median follow-up of 3 years (IQR: 1.6-5.4). Overall, the median interval between follow-up visits was 98 days (95% CI: 96-100) (high-risk patients: 91 days [95% CI: 86-95] vs. low-risk patients: 105 days [95% CI: 100-110]). Among 2,312 follow-up visits, only 387 (17%) were associated with interventions. At the following time points: 6 months, 1 year, and 1.5 years, patients with low-risk CLL had significantly lower odds of initiating treatment compared to patients with high-risk CLL.
conclusionWAW plays an important role in managing CLL. Interventions at follow-up visits were infrequent and low-risk patients had significantly lower risk of treatment initiation. We question the value of routine follow-up in CLL in the absence of changes in symptoms and/or blood test results.
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.