ReviewAnnals of hematology2022
Oncology stewardship in acute myeloid leukemia.
Review in Annals of hematology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacist-led interventions in hematological malignancies: a systematic review of clinical, process and economic outcomes.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Oncologists' Perspectives on Oncology Stewardship: A Focus Group Exploration in a Statewide Quality Improvement Consortium.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Article
- Uncovering the cellular and omics characteristics of natural killer cells in the bone marrow microenvironment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia.Cancer cell international · 2024Article
- Oncology stewardship: Role of the pharmacists for contribution in low and middle-income countries.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, an explosion of novel agents has shifted the treatment paradigm for patients with acute myeloid leukemia. The optimal place in therapy for many of these novel agents remains unknown due to limited guidance from national guidelines and the way these agents were studied prior to entering the market. A critical evaluation of the literature and incorporation of oncology stewardship principles can be helpful in determining an optimal place for these agents while being mindful of the overall cost that is associated with therapies. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the efficacy and safety data for five controversial agents and provide examples of the use of stewardship practices in determining their place in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.
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.