ArticleHemaSphere2023
Measurable Residual Disease Testing in Multiple Myeloma Routine Clinical Practice: A Modified Delphi Study.
Article in HemaSphere, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Next Generation Flow and Next Generation Sequencing for Measurable Residual Disease Assessment in Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Real-Life Italian Multicenter Harmonization Experience.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Guidelines and consensus for minimal residual disease-adapted therapy in multiple myeloma from the Pan-Pacific multiple myeloma working group.Clinical hematology international · 2026Article
- Community hematologist/oncologist perspectives on minimal residual disease testing in patients with multiple myeloma.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Cytogenetic risk stratification combined with minimal residual disease status influences the therapeutic outcome and prognosis of multiple myelomas.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We used a modified Delphi approach to establish areas of consensus and nonconsensus regarding the utility of determining measurable residual disease (MRD) to assess multiple myeloma (MM) treatment response, which may inform disease management and design of future clinical trials. This modified Delphi study incorporated 2 iterative rounds of surveys to evaluate the opinions of an expert panel of 61 practicing hematological oncologists from across 14 countries in Europe concerning the use of MRD testing in MM management. Survey 1 assessed experts' opinions on MRD testing in different clinical situations and associated challenges. Survey 2 focused on the lack of consensus areas identified in survey 1. Consensus to an individual question was defined
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.