Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36577602›Full record

ReviewBlood reviews2023

Navigating the perils and pitfalls throughout the consent process in hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Rachel Cusatis, Carlos Litovich, Ryan Spellecy, Andrew Liang, Anita D'Souza

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Blood reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel CusatisCenter for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, United States of America. Electronic address: rcusatis@mcw.edu.
Carlos LitovichCenter for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, United States of America.
Ryan SpellecyCenter for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Medical College of Wisconsin, United States of America.
Andrew LiangStudent-centered Program to Advance Research in Cancer Careers (SPARCC) Program, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Medical College of Wisconsin, United States of America; Molecular Cell Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, United States of America.
Anita D'SouzaDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, United States of America. Electronic address: anitadsouza@mcw.edu.
Medical College of Wisconsin · US

Funding

Development and validation of a disease-relevant patient-reported outcome tool in light chain amyloidosisK23HL141445 · NHLBI · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI D'SOUZA, ANITA · 2019 to 2022
$597k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL141445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a complex treatment used in malignancies and some non-malignant diseases. The informed consent process for HCT can also be complex due to patient- and process-related barriers. The informed consent process needs to be a dynamic and ongoing process, not simply a checklist. As a result of the realities of HCT, we highlight some potential pitfalls to the informed consent process including uncertainty, sociocultural and communication barriers, and decisional regret. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to highlight unique situations which can result in failure of the informed consent process. We also offer potential solutions to these pitfalls, primarily making the informed consent more patient focused through dynamic and continuous processes to mitigate decisional regret.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationNeoplasmsDecision MakingHumansInformed ConsentDecisional regretHCTHealth literacyInformed consentSociocultural barriers

Identifiers

PMID36577602
PMCPMC10548336
OpenAlexW4312037108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.