ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Guidelines for Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Converting Evidence into Action?
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Azacitidine Versus Best Supportive Care in Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Neoplasms: A Single-Center Cohort Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of IPSS, IPSS-R, and WPSS for Predicting Survival and Leukemic Transformation in Myelodysplastic Neoplasms: A Real-World Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Clinical Characteristics and Significance of Preclinically Detecting Biallelic Mutations in theLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Distinct Clinical and Prognostic Features of Myelodysplastic Syndrome in Patients from the Middle East, North Africa, and Beyond: A Systemic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Management of infection prophylaxis in Dutch patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, a web-based case vignette questionnaire: The MINDSET study.European journal of haematology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The heterogeneous group of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) needs an individualized and patient-tailored therapeutic approach. Consensus-based guidelines for diagnosis and treatment provide a basis for clinical decision making. MDS guidelines are issued by expert panels. Our main objective was to examine how guidelines influence patients' adherence to expert recommendations and how they ensure healthcare quality. To approach this question, we reviewed the most common guidelines for diagnosing and treating MDS in adult patients. Furthermore, we critically looked at quality indicators for everyday practice and studied adherence in an everyday outpatient setting. Finally, we also paid close attention to patient-reported outcome measures and studied how they are used as endpoints in clinical trials. We can conclude that the combination of evidence-based diagnostic tools, standardized treatment recommendations, and patient-centered shared decision making will eventually lead to a healthcare standard that will significantly improve outcomes in adult patients with MDS.
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.