4.2 Article

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: V. The 2014 Ancillary Therapy and Supportive Care Working Group Report

期刊

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 1167-1187

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.03.024

关键词

Chronic graft-versus-host disease; Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation; Supportive care; Consensus; Guidelines

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Intramural Research Program and Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program
  2. Office of Rare Disease Research, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  3. Division of Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease
  4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Division of Blood Diseases and Resources

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2006 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus paper presented recommendations by the Ancillary Therapy and Supportive Care Working Group to support clinical research trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Topics covered in that inaugural effort included the prevention and management of infections and common complications of chronic GVHD, as well as recommendations for patient education and appropriate follow-up. Given the new literature that has emerged during the past 8 years, we made further organ-specific refinements to these guidelines. Minimum frequencies are suggested for monitoring key parameters relevant to chronic GVHD during systemic immunosuppressive therapy and, thereafter, referral to existing late effects consensus guidelines is advised. Using the framework of the prior consensus, the 2014 NIH recommendations are organized by organ or other relevant systems and graded according to the strength and quality of supporting evidence. (C) 2015 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据