ReviewAnnals of hematology2024
MDS patient registries - achievements and challenges.
Review in Annals of hematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Since the late 1980s, patient registries have played a pivotal role in the elucidation of rare diseases. For myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), they revealed the disease actually to be diverse rather than rare. Registry data enabled the definition of various MDS subtypes and prognostic scores tailoring therapy. These classifications have been revised and refined several times, and the differential diagnosis of MDS has become increasingly complex. At the same time, the diagnosis has been made more commonly and no longer by specialized centers of expertise only. Consequently, several registries have collected data with different focuses and from different patient subpopulations. The current review presents three MDS registries and their rationale, scope, design, and achievements. All three complement each other and will remain a mainstay to advance the knowledge on MDS as well as to validate the outcomes of clinical trials. However, delineation of subtypes after the most recent WHO and IPC revisions, as well as the determination of the newest risk score M of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M), no longer just shift cut-offs but are based on multivariate compilations of highly specific genetic information. This paradigm shift involves challenging registries with respect to the assignment of all patients for whom this information has not yet been available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39174754What 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.