Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41348034›Full record

ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2025

The right patient, the right treatment: tailoring sickle cell disease care.

Sheinei Alan, Payal Desai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Sheinei AlanInova Adult Sickle Cell Program, Inova Schar Cancer Institute, UVA School of Medicine, Fairfax, VA.
Payal DesaiAtrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Charlotte, NC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sickle cell disease (SCD) remains the most common monogenic disorder worldwide, yet more than a century after its formal discovery, our treatment options and approach to care remain underdeveloped. Despite scientific progress, care for SCD continues to lag behind other chronic conditions, in part due to a lack of consensus on straightforward medical decision-making-driven by a persistent paucity of data and compounded by historical neglect, systemic inequities, and clinical heterogeneity. To truly serve this vulnerable population, we must move toward a more comprehensive, personalized approach to adult care-one that mirrors the individualized pain management plans routinely used in acute care settings. While much of the foundational work in SCD has been in pediatrics, this manuscript focuses on the adult population, where the burden of disease increases and access to specialized care declines. We emphasize the importance of considering genotype, hematologic profile, comorbid conditions, psychosocial context, and health literacy when developing treatment plans in shared decision-making with our patients. Ultimately, we hope this manuscript provides practical insights to help clinicians answer the daily complex questions surrounding sickle cell care: whom to treat and which interventions offer the most meaningful benefit for that particular patient.

Indexed as

Anemia, Sickle CellPrecision MedicineAdultFemaleHumansPain Management

Identifiers

PMID41348034
PMCPMC12891336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.