SynthesisHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia2025
Developing a Two-Sided Decision Box to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making for Switching From Conventional to Pharmacokinetic-Tailored Prophylaxis in Haemophilia.
Synthesis in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing a Two-Sided Decision Box to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making for Switching From Conventional to Pharmacokinetic-Tailored Prophylaxis in Haemophilia.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDecision-making in haemophilia is challenging due to the small evidence base, disease heterogeneity, and inter-patient variability. Shared decision-making (SDM) supports patient-clinician decisions.
aimCreation of a two-sided decision box facilitating SDM for haemophilia patients switching from conventional (weight-based) to pharmacokinetic driven individualized prophylaxis.
methodsWe developed an SDM tool as suggested by Giguere et al. A stakeholder discussion with haemophilia treaters and patients identified goals, burden, values and preferences. Benefits and harms of key questions were described with a common metric and base. A systematic review identified relevant evidence. PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Reviews and Cochrane Trials were searched from inception to June 2022. Original articles reporting switches from conventional to individualized prophylaxis within the same product class were included. Evidence from the review and discussion guided the design of the decision box. Feedback informed multiple iterations before the final version.
resultsA total of 569 titles and abstracts were screened, yielding 88 full texts. Eight studies met inclusion criteria: six reported on bleeding rates, four on dosing interval, three on factor consumption, three on quality of life, two on adherence, and two on costs. One study recommended SDM for tailored prophylaxis. Discussions unanimously suggested decision aids to facilitate the choice to switch to tailored prophylaxis. Clinicians highlighted the need for evidence on treatment individualization, while patients valued viewing relevant examples.
conclusionCreating decision tools for haemophilia is challenging due to low quantity and quality of evidence. Our decision box is ready for use with careful application of clinical judgement.
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.