ArticleEJHaem2023
Assessment of current clinical practice throughout the UK for the diagnosis and management of monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance.
Article in EJHaem, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Review of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2026Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the inception of the term monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS) in 2012 by the International Kidney and Monoclonal Gammopathy Research Group, there have been no consensus guidelines specifically pertaining to the UK regarding to patient management. We aimed to identify both regional and cross-discipline variation in current clinical practice, to provide insight and rationale for a potential standardised pathway in the future. A national survey of 88 consultants from the disciplines of haematology and nephrology was conducted between June 2020 and July 2021. Agreement was evident for aspects of the diagnostic pathway, including presenting features likely to raise suspicion of MGRS and the most pertinent confounding factors to consider before renal biopsy. However, significant variability was identified in both the cohort of diagnostic tests used, as well as urinary work-up for patients with suspected MGRS. Treatment and monitoring frequency was also an aspect of management identified as variable. Despite differences in clinical practice across the UK, MGRS diagnosis was widely regarded to be the joint responsibility of both disciplines. The results provide an indication of inter-regional and interdisciplinary differences in practice, highlighting the need for improved awareness and standardised protocol for management of MGRS that applies to the UK population.
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.