ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2022
Towards a Personalized Definition of Prognosis in Philadelphia-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.
Review in Current hematologic malignancy reports, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real World Management of Cytopenias and Infections in Patients With Myelofibrosis Treated With Ruxolitinib.EJHaem · 2025Article
- Prognostic and Predictive Models in Myelofibrosis.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Patients with Chronic Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: A Cross-Sectional Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Myelofibrosis.Blood · 2023Review
- Myelofibrosis and Survival Prognostic Models: A Journey between Past and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewPhiladelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) include polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), prefibrotic (pre-), and overt-primary myelofibrosis (primary MF, PMF). PV and ET could evolve into secondary MF (SMF), whose early diagnosis relies on monitoring signs of possible progression. All MPNs have a risk of blast phase (BP), that is associated with a very dismal outcome. Overall survival (OS) is different among MPNs, and disease-specific prognostic scores should be applied for a correct clinical management. In this review, an overview of current prognostic scores in MPNs will be provided. RECENT
findingsThe biological complexity of MPNs and its role on the trajectory of disease outcome have led to the design of integrated prognostic models that are nowadays of common use in PMF patients. As for PV and ET, splicing gene mutations could have a detrimental role, but with the limit of the not routinary recommended application of extensive molecular analysis in these diseases. SMF is recognized as a distinct entity compared to PMF, and OS estimates should be calculated by the MYSEC-PM (Myelofibrosis SECondary-prognostic model). Both in PMF and SMF, decisions as selection of patients potentially candidates to allogenic stem cell transplant or that could benefit from an early shift from standard treatment are based not only on conventional prognostic scores, but also on multivariable algorithms. The expanding landscape of risk prediction for OS, evolution to BP, and SMF progression from PV/ET informs personalized approach to the management of patients affected by MPNs.
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.