Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15266474›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma.

J Bohlius, M Reiser, G Schwarzer, A Engert

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J BohliusDepartment I of Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 15, Cologne, Germany, 50924.
M Reiser
G Schwarzer
A Engert
University of Cologne · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGranulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2003). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN

resultsWe included 12 eligible randomised controlled trials with 1823 patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.66 to 2.82); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11), FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35) and OS (hazard ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16). One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsG-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsFeverGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorGranulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansLymphomaNeutropeniaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntineoplastic AgentsGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorGranulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor

Identifiers

PMID15266474
OpenAlexW4231646779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.