Clinician survey regarding measurable residual disease-guided decision-making in multiple myeloma.

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. Minimal Residual Disease Negativity as the Primary Goal of Multiple Myeloma Therapy.Drugs · 2025
   Review
2. Community hematologist/oncologist perspectives on minimal residual disease testing in patients with multiple myeloma.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025
   Article
3. Attitudes and perspectives of oncologists about measurable residual disease testing in multiple myeloma: initiative for standardizing guidelines.Bone marrow transplantation · 2025
   Article
4. Validation of an AI-enabled exome/transcriptome liquid biopsy platform for early detection, MRD, disease monitoring, and therapy selection for solid tumors.Scientific reports · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as