Observational studyCurrent opinion in hematology2020
Registries for study of nonmalignant hematological diseases: the example of the Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry.
Observational study in Current opinion in hematology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Congenital dyserythropoietic anemia type I: First report from the Congenital Dyserythropoietic Anemia Registry of North America (CDAR).Blood cells, molecules & diseases · 2021Trial
- Expanding the genetic landscape of congenital neutropenia:Haematologica · 2024Article
- Article
- Identification of GFI1 mutations in adult patients with congenital neutropenia.Annals of hematology · 2022Article
- Outcomes for patients with severe chronic neutropenia treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.Blood advances · 2022Article
- Chronic neutropenic colitis with complete colonic obstruction in a patient with severe congenital neutropenia associated with G6PC3 mutations.Annals of hematology · 2022Article
- Congenital and Acquired Chronic Neutropenias: Challenges, Perspectives and Implementation of the EuNet-INNOCHRON Action.HemaSphere · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewRegistries provide 'real world' perspectives on the natural history and outcomes for many clinical conditions. The purpose of this review is to identify registries for nonmalignant hematological disease and to describe the operation of a successful long-term registry for patients with severe chronic neutropenia. RECENT
findingsThere was an upswing in registries about 20 years ago, based on optimism about their utility to improve patient care. To show value, registries must define outcomes for populations of patients with specific medical conditions and the effects of treatment. This is challenging for many reasons. The Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry is an example of a successful registry. This report describes underlying reasons for its success. SUMMARY: Registries are important to organize and analyze clinical information across geographic, ethnic and social boundaries. They are also challenging to organize, administer and support.
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.