ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2026
Shared Decision-Making in Treatment Selection in Multiple Myeloma in Spain: The PRISMMA Study.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2026. 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.
- Shared Decision-Making in Treatment Selection in Multiple Myeloma in Spain: The PRISMMA Study.European journal of haematology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
introductionPerceptions and experiences of shared decision-making between patients and physicians in multiple myeloma (MM) care are not fully understood. A survey study was conducted to explore these perspectives in Spain.
methodsTwo anonymous online surveys, one for haematologists and one for MM patients, were developed. Both included related questions on treatment goals, treatment options discussion and the decision-making process.
resultsIn total, 72 haematologists and 76 MM patients completed the survey, including 23 in first-line treatment, 37 in second-line or later and 16 with no or unknown treatment line. The most common treatment goal for patients (67%) and haematologists (90%) was to prolong survival with a good quality of life. Becoming symptom-free was the second most important treatment goal for patients and haematologists, followed by extending survival over quality of life for patients and quality of life over survival for haematologists. Both groups agreed that minimising hospital visits was the least important treatment goal. While 92% of haematologists reported discussing treatment goals with their patients, 17% of patients reported having this discussion. Discordances between haematologists and patients emerged in perceptions of who made the final treatment decision.
conclusionWhile general agreement between patients and haematologists on extending survival with good quality of life was found for the main treatment goal, a need to align second treatment goals and improve the shared decision-making was identified. Addressing these differences is important to ensure the selection of the most appropriate treatment for the individual patient at each stage of their journey.
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.