ArticleInternational journal of hematology2026
Evidence- and opinion-based consensus from Delphi round 1 of the Asian aplastic anemia recommendation development.
Article in International journal of hematology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementing international guidelines for aplastic anemia (AA) in Asia remains challenging due to limited access to advanced diagnostic tools, restricted treatment options, and variation in healthcare policies. This highlights a need for region-specific guidance on the diagnosis and management of AA in Asia.
methodsThe Asian Aplastic Anemia Working Group consisted of 10 experts from across Asia (South Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand) who met virtually twice and developed 16 thematic statements on the diagnosis and management of AA. Using an e-Delphi method, members voted asynchronously on these statements using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as "≥ 80% level of agreement among the Delphi participants."
resultsSixteen thematic statements and 54 sub-statements were developed. The first three statements addressed AA definition, presentation, and causes; the next four focused on diagnosis and prognosis; and the remaining nine covered management, including clonal evolution, supportive care, and special populations. Fifteen statements reached consensus after the first voting round. However, one statement on the management of severe AA did not achieve consensus in the first round.
conclusionThis e-Delphi method has, for the first time, generated Asian, expert-derived, consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and management of AA.
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.