ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Perspectives of Healthcare Providers and Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma on Treatment Priorities and Novel Therapies.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. 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 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.
- Revolutionizing 2L+ Myeloma: A Podcast on the New Era of BCMA-Targeted Bispecific Antibody Therapies.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: With novel therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy and bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), healthcare providers (HCPs) face complexities managing treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This study, among the largest surveys on RRMM, examined unmet needs in care access, barriers to novel therapy use, and treatment decision-making. Methods: This survey-based study (March-June 2024) enrolled 2284 participants (patients: 1301; HCPs: 983) across 7 countries. Patients with >1 relapse/progression and HCPs managing ≥3 patients were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Χ Results: For patients, treatment priorities included slowing disease progression (second line [2L], 47%; third or later line [≥3L], 49%), minimizing adverse events (AEs; 2L, 43%; ≥3L, 49%), and extending life (2L, 39%; ≥3L, 38%). HCPs prioritized prolonging survival and controlling disease. Younger patients (<65 vs ≥65 years) prioritized convenience (40% vs 24%; Conclusion: This study revealed gaps in treatment priorities; patients valued quality of life and AE management, while HCPs focused on efficacy and delaying progression. There is a significant need to educate HCPs and patients on the impact of shared decision-making when considering novel treatments for RRMM.
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.