ArticleActa haematologica2026
Treatment Decision-Making for Individuals with Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the USA.
Article in Acta haematologica, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAs available treatment options for relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) increase, treatment decisions become increasingly complex. This cross-sectional study evaluated patient and physician decision-making when selecting treatment for R/R CLL in the USA.
methodsAfter an initial pilot, 100 individuals with R/R CLL and 100 physicians who treat R/R CLL completed web-based surveys on factors that influenced treatment selection and levels of involvement during treatment selection. Categorical measures were summarized using numbers/proportions, and continuous measures were summarized using means/standard deviations.
resultsIndividuals with R/R CLL and physicians prioritized treatment efficacy (individuals: N = 47 of 78, 60.3%; physicians: N = 79 of 100, 79.0%) and potential side effects (individuals: N = 43 of 78, 55.1%; physicians: N = 50 of 79, 63.3%) when selecting treatment. Differences in the relative importance of specific factors were observed. Financial and cost factors were important for individuals, while medical history was important for physicians. Both cohorts reported a shared decision-making process.
conclusionBuilding upon previous findings in the front-line CLL setting, this study confirms that individuals with R/R CLL and physicians commonly consider efficacy and safety of different treatment options when making their decision. Relative importance of specific factors within these and other categories differs across the samples.
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.