ArticleBritish journal of cancer1995
Bone marrow examination in newly diagnosed Hodgkin's disease: current practice in the United Kingdom.
Article in British journal of cancer, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bone involvement in patients with lymphoma: the role of FDG-PET/CT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the UK Hodgkin's disease is usually treated by either clinical oncologists or haematologists. A national study of the performance of bone marrow examination in newly diagnosed Hodgkin's disease was undertaken to establish current practice. A total of 620 questionnaires were despatched, and replies were received from 60% of consultants (45% of clinical oncologists and 70% of haematologists). Bone marrow examination was performed in all new cases significantly more often by haematologists than by clinical oncologists (74% vs 40%, P < 0.001). Among haematologists, there was no correlation between the number of new patients seen annually and practice, however clinical oncologists were even less likely to perform routine bone marrow biopsies if they saw more than ten patients per year (P < 0.02). Where bone marrow examination was performed selectively, the most common criteria used were peripheral blood cytopenia and advanced-stage disease. These criteria were applied in the same way by both clinical oncologists and haematologists. Bone marrow biopsy, an invasive and often painful procedure, is currently performed more frequently in Hodgkin's disease than can be recommended on the basis of recent studies in the literature and associated guidelines. There is a significant difference in practice between clinical oncologists and haematologists, and this raises the wider issue of the influence of hospital specialisation on patient management.
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.