Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31723779›Full record

ArticleHemaSphere2018

Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Retrospective Analysis of the Dutch Population-based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies (PHAROS).

Silvia G R Verelst, Hedwig M Blommestein, Saskia De Groot, Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuire, Lucy DeCosta, Johan B de Raad, Carin A Uyl-de Groot, Pieter Sonneveld

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HemaSphere, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Silvia G R VerelstDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hedwig M BlommesteinErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Saskia De GrootErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuireAmgen (Europe) GmbH, Zug, Switzerland.
Lucy DeCostaAmgen Ltd, Uxbridge, UK.
Johan B de RaadAmgen BV, Breda, The Netherlands.
Carin A Uyl-de GrootErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter SonneveldDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Registry data are important for monitoring the impact of new therapies on treatment algorithms and outcomes, and for guiding clinical decision making in multiple myeloma (MM). This observational study analyzed real-world data from patients in the Population-based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies who were treated for symptomatic MM from 2008 to 2013 in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from initiation of first-line treatment. Secondary endpoints included OS and progression-free survival per treatment line, treatment patterns, and treatment response. Between 2008 and 2013, 917, 583, 283, and 139 patients had initiated first, second, third, and fourth treatment lines, respectively. Thalidomide-based regimens were the most frequently used first-line treatment (66%); bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens were most often used in the second line (41% and 27%, respectively). The median OS (95% confidence interval) ranged from 37.5 months (34.8-41.8 months) in the first line to 9.2 months (6.2-12.3 months) in the fourth line. Univariate analyses showed that survival benefits were most apparent in younger patients (≤65 vs >65 years). These analyses provide important real-world information on treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with MM.

Identifiers

PMID31723779
PMCPMC6746001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.