Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19160282›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Bone marrow harvest versus peripheral stem cell collection for haemopoietic stem cell donation in healthy donors.

Samreen Siddiq, Derwood Pamphilon, Susan Brunskill, Carolyn Doree, Chris Hyde, Simon Stanworth

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Samreen SiddiqBristol Haematology Oncology Centre , United Bristol Healthcare Trust, Horfield Road , Bristol, UK, BS2 8ED.
Derwood Pamphilon
Susan Brunskill
Carolyn Doree
Chris Hyde
Simon Stanworth
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBNHS Blood and Transplant · GBBristol Institute for Transfusion Sciences · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaemopoietic stem cells can be collected from a donor either as a bone marrow harvest or by peripheral blood collection. Both techniques have risks for the donor.

objectivesThe aim of this review was to identify the adverse effects of haemopoietic stem cell donation and to compare the tolerability and safety of the two methods. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to May 2008. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials enrolling haemopoietic stem cell donors and evaluating the different methods of donating haemopoietic stem cells were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion. We extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. Quantitative analysis was not possible for most outcomes, but where used we preferred random-effects models due to the variability between the included studies. MAIN

resultsSix trials (807 donors) were eligible: all were substudies, or constituent parts of, larger randomised controlled trials of bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell allogeneic transplantation. No included trial was designed solely to measure and assess the experience of stem cell donors. The donors in all studies were related to the stem cell recipient. Overall, both types of donors experienced pain subsequent to donation, and psychological morbidity. The trend was for bone marrow donors to experience more pain at the donation site, more overall adverse events, and more days of restricted activity. They were also more likely to require hospitalisation than peripheral blood stem cell donors. In contrast, peripheral blood stem cell donors experienced more pain prior to donation, which may be related to the pre-donation administration of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The methodological quality of the studies was poor and indicated limitations due to the risk of selection and attrition bias. The proportion of donors from the parent trial not included in the donor substudies was also inadequately explained. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe different short-term morbidities associated with each type of haemopoietic stem cell donation were clear, with bone marrow donors experiencing more pain and more restriction post-donation than peripheral blood donors. However, the studies were limited by their methodological quality, failure to provide long-term follow up (for which larger numbers of donors would be required) and a failure to apply consistent measures of quality of life in a way which allows more meaningful evaluation across studies.

Indexed as

Bone Marrow CellsTissue DonorsAnxietyGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHematopoietic Stem Cell MobilizationHematopoietic Stem CellsHumansPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTissue and Organ HarvestingGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor

Identifiers

PMID19160282
PMCPMC12500230
OpenAlexW2140683694

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.