ReviewPharmacoEconomics1994
Colony-stimulating factors. Present status and future potential.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges to the economic evaluation of new biotechnological interventions in healthcare.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Article
- Autologous peripheral blood progenitor-cell transplantation versus autologous bone marrow transplantation for adults and children with non-leukaemic malignant disease. A randomised economic study.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) have been used successfully to enhance neutrophil recovery in patients with various malignancies undergoing standard or high dose chemotherapy, with or without autologous or allogeneic bone marrow transplantation support, and offer potential advantages in these settings in terms of reducing the total costs of healthcare and/or improving therapeutic outcomes. Clinical trials are now aimed at identifying which patients and which nonhaematological malignancies will respond best to colony-stimulating factor (CSF) support, and which of the 2 factors is the most appropriate in each setting. Two areas of considerable interest at present are the potential for chemotherapy dose optimisation and intensification with CSF therapy, and the use of CSFs to permit the harvest and reinfusion of peripheral blood progenitor cells as an alternative to autologous or allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. In the case of dose-intensified chemotherapy, costs of treatment increase but the gain may be an increase in survival rates or disease-free intervals. The potential of G-CSF and GM-CSF therapy in other conditions, notably haematological malignancies such as myelodysplasia and myeloid leukaemias, and AIDS, means that these agents are likely to make a significant impact on the treatment of a wide range of debilitating conditions in the future.
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.