ArticleHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia2025
Managing Haemophilic Arthropathy in People With Haemophilia in Japan: An Informal Consensus.
Article 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.
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.
- Managing Haemophilic Arthropathy in People With Haemophilia in Japan: An Informal Consensus.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPeople with haemophilia who develop haemophilic arthropathy experience disabling physical effects, limiting functionality and quality of life (QOL). Although Clinical Practice Guidelines are available for haemophilia management, consensus on haemophilic arthropathy management is needed.
aimTo develop recommendations for haemophilic arthropathy management in people with haemophilia adapted to the Japanese medical setting.
methodsUsing an informal consensus method, a steering group of 14 clinical experts (orthopaedic, rehabilitation, paediatric, and haematology) in Japan developed 40 literature-based statements and 18 sub-statements related to haemophilic arthropathy management in people with haemophilia. A panel of 30 experts was surveyed by email about their level of agreement with each statement/sub-statement. Responses were tabulated to determine the level of agreement with each statement/sub-statement: strong consensus, consensus, non-consensus, and strong non-consensus.
resultsThe survey was completed by 27/30 respondents. Strong consensus/consensus was reached for 39 statements/sub-statements, non-consensus/strong non-consensus was reached for four (all related to pain assessment and management), and consensus/non-consensus was not reached for 15.
conclusionBased on insights from a wide range of clinical experts, recommendations for the management of haemophilic arthropathy in people with haemophilia in Japan were developed to aid in addressing the unique challenges faced by healthcare providers in the country. The survey findings indicate that diagnostic tools are needed to aid in haemophilic arthropathy diagnosis. Routine evaluations (physical function, joint ultrasound, QOL, and psychological), activities (physical therapy, rehabilitation, aerobic exercise, and sports), appropriate pain management, and proactive screening for osteoporosis are important when managing haemophilic arthropathy in people with haemophilia.
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.