ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the regular follow-up and outcomes of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic-phase.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- COVID-19 mitigates the response to TKIs in patients with CML via the inhibition of T-cell immunity.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care delivery, follow-up and outcomes in chronic myeloid leukemia patients: An observational cohort study.Bioinformation · 2024Article
- COVID-19 Impact on Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: COVID-19 immediately became a major consideration in the management of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). The influence of such considerations on viral transmission rates and leukemic control remain to be explored. We conducted this study to identify these alterations and to investigate their clinical consequences. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study, performed at a single institution on CML patients who were interviewed with a survey. We compared variables concerning new attitudes in the pandemic era between the 12-month periods before and after the pandemic onset. Outcome data were attained from the hospital archives. Findings: The number of patients receiving regular outpatient care for CML in chronic phase was 210, 91% had achieved at least major molecular responses. We assessed survival, progression, number of clinical visits of all, performed the survey on 89% and evaluated molecular responses on 86.6% of these patients. The frequency of clinical and molecular monitoring was significantly reduced during the pandemic deviating significantly from the guidelines. Frequency of death, progression, loss of molecular response was not significantly increased during the pandemic era despite a few cases where the delay in assessment possibly played a role in the unfavorable outcomes. There were no COVID related deaths or disabilities. Conclusion: The case-based untoward events would have probably been better managed with a more efficient communication web between patients, hematologists, and the laboratory. Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider whether such communicative paths are functional before giving up on the set schedule of CML management at times of uncertainty.
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.