ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
National myeloma patient survey shows continuing inappropriate imaging and geographical inequalities.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. 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.
- Precision medicine in myeloma demands precision imaging: is whole body MRI the solution?Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Whole body MRI by MY-RADS for imaging response assessment in multiple myeloma.Blood cancer journal · 2025Observational
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
objectiveTo evaluate the provision of imaging at diagnosis of myeloma from the service user perspective with a specific focus on how the experiences of patients align with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (NG35, 2016) on first-line imaging practice for myeloma in the United Kingdom.
methodsA national survey was performed to evaluate access to imaging from the patient's perspective. Patients with myeloma who received their diagnosis between 2017 and March 2022 were invited to participate. Data were collected using an online survey from 895 patients and carers between 4 and 14 March 2022.
resultsMost patients had more than one imaging test. First-line MRI was used in 69.2% of respondents. First-line skeletal survey (SS, whole body X-rays) remained common (48.7% of respondents). 18F-fluorodexyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) was used least often (23.1% of respondents). SS was used more often in East England (57.9%) and Scotland (61.2%) than in South East England (36.3%).
conclusionsDespite NICE recommendations, first-line MRI was not used in a third of patients surveyed, with geographical variation in imaging practice. Patients are still undergoing multiple imaging tests at diagnosis. Healthcare professionals should continue to emphasize the superiority of MRI compared to SS to drive for improvements in care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Current recommendations on first-line imaging for myeloma are not provided consistently across the United Kingdom. There is a need to drive change and support healthcare professionals to deliver guidance-based recommendations to improve experience and outcomes for patients.
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.