ArticleBMJ public health2026
Association of haematological cancer drugs recommendation levels in Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology guideline with different approval approaches: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To evaluate the associations between approval approaches and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) guidelines for haematological cancer drug indications. Methods: Haematological cancer drug indications approved via different approaches between 2015 and 2023 were retrieved from the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) website, and their CSCO guideline recommendation levels were analysed. Basic characteristics were analysed descriptively. Fisher's test and t-tests were used to respectively explore the associations of the approval approaches and the recommendation level, and the time difference between the indications obtaining the recommendation level and being approved by the NMPA. Changes in recommendation levels were also analysed. Results: The NMPA approved 52 haematological cancer drug indications (33 anticancer drugs) from 2015 to 2023. 5 indications were approved via routine approval (RA) and 47 were approved via accelerated approval (AA). 39 indications obtained CSCO guideline recommendation level I. Indications approved via the AA and RA were similarly likely to obtain level I. The average time for the indications approved via the RA to obtain the recommendation level is 7.6 months before the indications were approved by the NMPA. And the average time for the indications approved via AA to obtain the recommended level is -5.51 months. For indications approved via priority review and RA, there was a difference in the average time from obtaining recommendation level to obtaining NMPA approval. Compared with CSCO's initial recommendation levels, 15 indications obtained higher recommendation level in the updated CSCO guideline. Conclusions: Most haematological cancer drug indications obtained CSCO guideline recommendation level I, with no significant difference between AA and RA in the recommendation level. Indications approved via RA obtained recommendation level more quickly. Some indications obtained a higher recommendation level in the updated guideline. Strengthening communication between the NMPA and CSCO and ensuring timely integration of emerging evidence may improve the alignment between approval decisions and recommendation level.
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.