ArticleBlood advances2020
Guideline-based indicators for adult patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.
Article in Blood advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health-related quality of life of patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms treated with decitabine: a systematic literature review.Annals of hematology · 2026Pooled it
- Quality indicators of supportive care for patients with cancer undergoing treatment: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Determinants of low health-related quality of life in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: EUMDS Registry study.Blood advances · 2023Trial
- Somatic mutations and DNA methylation identify a subgroup of poor prognosis within lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.HemaSphere · 2025Article
- Treatment of Anemia in Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Management of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.Blood cancer journal · 2022Review
- Clinical view versus guideline adherence in ferritin monitoring and initiating iron chelation therapy in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.European journal of haematology · 2022Observational
- Management of infection prophylaxis in Dutch patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, a web-based case vignette questionnaire: The MINDSET study.European journal of haematology · 2022Article
- Core set of patient-reported outcomes for myelodysplastic syndromes: an EUMDS Delphi study involving patients and hematologists.Blood advances · 2022Article
- Guidelines for Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Converting Evidence into Action?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Myelodysplastic Syndromes in the Postgenomic Era and Future Perspectives for Precision Medicine.Cancers · 2021Review
- When Should We Think of Myelodysplasia or Bone Marrow Failure in a Thrombocytopenic Patient? A Practical Approach to Diagnosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Patient-Physician Communication in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2021Review
- Survey on Recommended Health Care for Adult Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes Identifies Areas for Improvement.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) represent a heterogeneous group of hematological stem cell disorders with an increasing burden on health care systems. Evidence-based MDS guidelines and recommendations (G/Rs) are published but do not necessarily translate into better quality of care if adherence is not maintained in daily clinical practice. Guideline-based indicators (GBIs) are measurable elements for the standardized assessment of quality of care and, thus far, have not been developed for adult MDS patients. To this end, we screened relevant G/Rs published between 1999 and 2018 and aggregated all available information as candidate GBIs into a formalized handbook as the basis for the subsequent consensus rating procedure. An international multidisciplinary expert panel group (EPG) of acknowledged MDS experts (n = 17), health professionals (n = 7), and patient advocates (n = 5) was appointed. The EPG feedback rates for the first and second round were 82% (23 of 28) and 96% (26 of 27), respectively. A final set of 29 GBIs for the 3 domains of diagnosis (n = 14), therapy (n = 8), and provider/infrastructural characteristics (n = 7) achieved the predefined agreement score for selection (>70%). We identified shortcomings in standardization of patient-reported outcomes, toxicity, and geriatric assessments that need to be optimized in the future. Our GBIs represent the first comprehensive consensus on measurable elements addressing best practice performance, outcomes, and structural resources. They can be used as a standardized instrument with the goal of assessing, comparing, and fostering good quality of care within clinical development cycles in the daily care of adult MDS patients.
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.