Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40556336›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of haematology2025

Clinical management of CMML-State of the art.

K Nachtkamp, F Schulz, N Gattermann, U Germing

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of haematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [How I diagnose and treat chronic myelomonocytic leukemia].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Clinical management of CMML-State of the art.British journal of haematology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

K NachtkampDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5893-2298
F SchulzDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
N GattermannDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
U GermingDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic myelomonocytic leukaemias (CMML) are myeloid neoplasms characterized by a sustained increase in monocyte counts in the peripheral blood, accompanied by dysplasia, abnormal proliferation, chromosomal anomalies and somatic mutations of haematopoietic cells. More than 95% of CMML patients harbour somatic mutations. CMML must be separated from other myeloid neoplasms and reactive monocytosis. The clinical presentation of CMML varies, but most frequently shows signs and symptoms of haematopoietic insufficiency or myeloproliferation. Robust instruments are available for assessing the prognosis of patients with CMML, such as the CMML-specific prognostic scoring system molecular. Treatment options for patients with CMML are still inadequate and generally less effective than those for other myeloid neoplasms. The only curative approach is allogeneic stem cell transplantation. This article explains essential aspects of CMML pathophysiology and provides an overview of diagnostic considerations, prognostic assessment and therapeutic options.

Indexed as

Leukemia, Myelomonocytic, ChronicDisease ManagementHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansMutationPrognosischronic myelomonocytic leukaemiaCPSSmolMDS/MPN overlaptreatment of CMML

Identifiers

PMID40556336
PMCPMC12378909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.