ArticleClinical hematology international2026
Should monitoring guidelines and decision to treat for IgM MGUS be different when caring for Jehovah's Witness patients?
Article in Clinical hematology international, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A practicing Jehovah's Witness with diagnosed IgM monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) in 2014 was hospitalized within one year of her annual checkup. She had hyperviscosity syndrome with blurry vision and severe anemia but, due to religious beliefs, would not accept blood products. She was treated with therapeutic plasma exchange therapy with subjective improvement of her blurry vision, decrease in her serum viscosity, and improvement of her anemia. This bloodless medicine patient (BMP) had annual follow up per the Mayo Clinic Stratification System guidelines for her asymptomatic MGUS, as she fell into the intermediate-risk category given her age, laboratory values, and lack of symptoms. Due to the inability to provide proper rescue therapy with blood products in the event of anemia, we suggest adjusting the monitoring and surveillance interval for BMPs regardless of laboratory values. We suggest that BMPs undergo additional monitoring including iron and coagulation studies to preempt and prevent potential complications of symptomatic anemia, coagulopathy, and hyperviscosity syndrome. We recommend shortening the follow-up for these patients to every 3-6 months, as opposed to the standard follow-up that is recommended for IgM MGUS (typically ranging from 6-12 months). This would also drive earlier conversations about the risks and benefits of initiating earlier treatment in these patients, given their risks of complications if their MGUS progresses to malignancy.
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.