ReviewClinical hematology international2019
Moving Toward Continuous Therapy in Multiple Myeloma.
Review in Clinical hematology international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacist-led interventions in hematological malignancies: a systematic review of clinical, process and economic outcomes.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- The Perspective of Romanian Patients on Continuous Therapy for Multiple Myeloma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Patient Perspectives on Social and Identity Factors Affecting Multiple Myeloma Care: Barriers and Opportunities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone as Induction Therapy Prior to Autologous Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma: The More Is Likely the Better.Clinical hematology international · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of novel agents, characterized by favorable toxicity profiles and higher manageability compared to conventional drugs employed in the past, has considerably changed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma. Continuous therapy currently represents the standard approach for myeloma patients both at diagnosis and at relapse. In younger patients, long-term maintenance after autologous transplantation significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to observation. Also in transplant-ineligible patients, continuous treatment with combinations of newer agents and maintenance treatment following a more intense induction phase proved to be superior as compared to fixed-duration therapy. Maintenance and continuous therapy at diagnosis have shown to deepen responses and suppress minimal residual disease. At relapse, continuous therapy allowed better disease control over time. This review covers the main evidence supporting the use of continuous therapy in multiple myeloma as well as the open issues, such as the optimal agents to be used and the optimal candidates for receiving them.
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.