ArticleEJHaem2024
Development of the treatment preference in myelodysplasia questionnaire for clinicians, carers, and patients.
Article in EJHaem, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study reports the development activities for the Treatment Preference Myelodysplasia Questionnaires (TPMQ) for clinicians (mTPMQ), carers (cTPMQ), and patients (pTPMQ). These tools are intended to evaluate treatment preferences for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). This was a non-interventional, cross-sectional qualitative interview study consisting of interviews with clinicians, patients, and those caring for patients with MDS. All participants were located in Australia and data were collected from qualitative mixed-method interviews composed of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing related to initial drafts of the questionnaires. Fifteen individuals participated in interviews (five from each group). Based on the concept elicitation portion of interviews, concepts of importance were classified and reasons for treatment preference were documented. From cognitive debriefing, the questionnaires were generally deemed to be clear and easy to understand. Participant input from both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing portions was used to revise initial drafts of the questionnaires. The mTPMQ, cTPMQ, and pTPMQ were developed with direct input from clinicians, patients, and caregivers to assess the key concepts of interest related to the preference for the treatment of MDS and are ready to be used and evaluated further in clinical trials.
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.