ArticleBMJ open2025
Duffy-null variant and practical implications for patient care: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and map research examining clinical associations with the Duffy-null variant.
designScoping review of the existing literature. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies published in English between 1 January 2000 and 25 June 2024. ELIGIBILITY: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they examined associations relevant to current standard clinical practice and met our protocol's inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted the following information from included studies: study year(s), patient population, sample size, study design, primary outcome and primary findings. Studies were grouped by outcome and synthesised in tabular and qualitative formats.
resultsA total of 2737 studies were screened, and 44 met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were observational, and the most common research question examined was the association with resistance to
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.