ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2021
Lower risk but high risk.
Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the evolving role of early palliative care in myelodysplastic syndromes: a 2026 narrative review.Annals of hematology · 2026Review
- The role and therapeutic potential of nanotechnology-mediated ferroptosis regulation in myelodysplastic syndromes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Are We Ready For "Triplet" Therapy in Higher-Risk MDS?Clinical hematology international · 2023Article
- Defining the mutational profile of lower-risk myelodysplastic neoplasm patients with respect to disease progression using next-generation sequencing and pyrosequencing.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2023Article
- Management of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.Blood cancer journal · 2022Review
- Risk stratifying MDS in the time of precision medicine.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk stratification is crucial to the appropriate management of most cancers, but in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), for whom expected survival can vary from a few months to more than a decade, accurate disease prognostication is especially important. Currently, patients with MDS are often grouped into higher-risk (HR) vs lower-risk (LR) disease using clinical prognostic scoring systems, but these systems have limitations. Factors such as molecular genetic information or disease characteristics not captured in the International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised (IPSS-R) can alter risk stratification and identify a subset of patients with LR-MDS who actually behave more like those with HR-MDS. This review describes the current identification and management of patients with LR-MDS whose condition is likely to behave in a less favorable manner than predicted by the IPSS-R.
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.