ArticleAnnals of hematology2020
Tracing the decision-making process for myelofibrosis: diagnosis, stratification, and management of ruxolitinib therapy in real-word practice.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2020. 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.
- High-dose ruxolitinib (25 mg twice daily) in myelofibrosis: feasibility, safety, and long-term treatment exposure in a real-world cohort.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and disease characteristics of myelofibrosis: a comparative analysis between Italy and global perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Management of classical Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms in Asia: consensus of the Asian Myeloid Working Group.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Review
- Study of Symptom Severity and Adherence to Therapy of Myelofibrosis Patients Treated with Ruxolitinib.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Myelofibrosis and Survival Prognostic Models: A Journey between Past and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Management of polycythemia vera: A survey of treatment patterns in Italy.European journal of haematology · 2023Article
- Machine Learning Improves Risk Stratification in Myelofibrosis: An Analysis of the Spanish Registry of Myelofibrosis.HemaSphere · 2023Article
- Prediction of Survival and Prognosis Migration from Gold-Standard Scores in Myelofibrosis Patients Treated with Ruxolitinib Applying the RR6 Prognostic Model in a Monocentric Real-Life Setting.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Management of Myelofibrosis during Treatment with Ruxolitinib: A Real-World Perspective in Case of Resistance and/or Intolerance.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- The clinical dilemma of JAK inhibitor failure in myelofibrosis: Predictive characteristics and outcomes.Cancer · 2022Review
- The relationship between JAK2(V617F) mutation and dermatomyositis-a case report and literature review.Clinical rheumatology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of patients with myelofibrosis (MF) has dramatically changed since the introduction of ruxolitinib as a tailored treatment strategy. However, the perceptions about the use of this drug in clinical practice remain, at times, a matter of discussion. We conducted a survey about the diagnostic evaluation, prognostic assessment, and management of ruxolitinib in real-life clinical practice in 18 Italian hematology centers. At diagnosis, most hematologists do not use genetically or molecularly inspired score systems to assess prognosis, mainly due to scarce availability of next-generation sequencing (NGS) methodology, with NGS conversely reserved only for a subset of lower-risk MF patients with the aim of possibly improving the treatment strategy. Some common points in the management of ruxolitinib were 1) clinical triggers for ruxolitinib therapy, regardless of risk category; 2) evaluation of infectious risk before the starting of the drug; and 3) schedule of monitoring during the first 12 weeks with the need, in some instances, of supportive treatment. Further development of international recommendations and insights will allow the achievement of common criteria for the management of ruxolitinib in MF, before and after treatment, and for the definition of response and failure.
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.