ArticleJournal of blood medicine2026
A Delphi Consensus by Hematologists on the Burden of Treatment on Patients with Severe Hemophilia in Mexico.
Article in Journal of blood medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Current treatment of hemophilia still represents an important burden for patients and caregivers. As a consequence, adherence can be poor, thus reducing efficiency of treatment. Then, a modified Delphi method was used to assess the burden of hemophilia treatment in Mexico. Methods: In the first round, the experts answered online a questionnaire with 32 statements structured in eight sections: overall efficacy of recombinant coagulation factors, delivery of recombinant factors, adherence to treatment with recombinant factors, emotional burden, physical load, interference with daily life, impact of adherence on efficacy, and satisfaction with treatment. Each statement was qualified from "Totally disagree" to "Totally agree". In the second round, those statements with less than 70% agreement between experts were discussed. Results: Consensus was reached in more than half of the questions. There was a consensus on the limited efficacy of current treatments, the complexity of preparation and administration of the recombinant coagulation factors, and the negative effect of the emotional burden, among other statements. Answers to the section related to the impact of adherence on efficacy showed the concern of experts about this issue. Conclusion: The burden of prophylactic hemophilia treatment on patients and caregivers in Mexico is substantial. Its negative effects on adherence and efficacy of treatment require evaluation of new approaches to hemophilia treatment.
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.