ArticleHematology, transfusion and cell therapy2026
Emicizumab and shared medical decision in patients living with hemophilia A.
Article in Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimEmicizumab is a new prophylactic treatment for patients with severe hemophilia A. This study evaluated patient decisional conflict and physician decisional comfort regarding the switch to emicizumab, identifying the criteria that drive this choice.
methodsThis is an observational, non-interventional, multicenter, retrospective and exploratory study of hemophilia A patients at seven centers in France. The evaluation used the patient's decisional conflict scale and the physician's decisional comfort scale, as well as a questionnaire to determine the criteria for choosing whether to switch to emicizumab. A cluster approach was applied to identify patient subgroups with distinct decisional profiles.
resultsA total of 53 patients and their physicians were included in this study: 34 in the emicizumab arm and 19 in the factor VIII arm. Patients in the factor VIII arm reported higher remorse, while physicians in this group felt significantly less comfortable with the decision. While factors influencing the decision were similar between both patients and physicians, illustrating good mutual understanding. Cluster analysis identified a specific subgroup (23%) in the total cohort experiencing high decisional conflict despite their final choice, highlighting a need for targeted clinical support.
conclusionThis study highlights the importance of shared decision-making in hemophilia treatment, encouraging open communication between patients and physicians for more personalized care.
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.