ArticleBone marrow transplantation2009
Are there roles for observational database studies and structured quantification of expert opinion to answer therapy controversies in transplants?
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Using multiple types of studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions--a systematic review.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Classifying cytogenetics in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia in complete remission undergoing allogeneic transplantation: a Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research study.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2012Trial
- Daratumumab-based first-line therapy benefit multiple myeloma patients in a real-world setting: a multi-center retrospective propensity score-match study.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Transplant indications, guidelines and recommendations: Caveat Emptor.Bone marrow transplantation · 2022Article
- Can guidelines inhibit innovation and critical thinking?Bone marrow transplantation · 2020Article
- Statistical analyses of clinical trials in haematopoietic cell transplantation or why there is a strong correlation between people drowning after falling out of a fishing boat and marriage rate in Kentucky.Bone marrow transplantation · 2020Article
- Standardizing haematopoietic cell transplants in China.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2018Article
- Quality control and assurance in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation data registries in Japan and other countries.International journal of hematology · 2016Article
- From evidence to clinical practice in blood and marrow transplantation.Blood reviews · 2015Review
- Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes of Trial Participants and Nonparticipants: Example of Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 0201 Trial.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2015Article
- Neoplastic and non-neoplastic complications of solid organ transplantation in patients with preexisting monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.Clinical transplantation · 2015Article
- Who is the best alternative allotransplant donor?Bone marrow transplantation · 2015Article
- Interpreting outcome data in hematopoietic cell transplantation for leukemia: tackling common biases.Bone marrow transplantation · 2015Review
- Review
- 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet', or would it?Bone marrow transplantation · 2013Article
- Markov model of CLL transplants.Bone marrow transplantation · 2012Article
- Assessing causal relationships between treatments and clinical outcomes: always read the fine print.Bone marrow transplantation · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approaches to determine whether one transplant-related therapy is better than another include: (1) using experimental data, such as those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) using observational data, such as those from observational databases (ODBs) and (3) using conclusions from the structured quantification of expert opinion based on a consideration of evidence from RCTs, ODBs and other sources. Large RCTs are widely and appropriately regarded as the gold standard of clinical investigation. However, data from large RCTs are rarely available for transplant-related therapy questions. We discuss some of the limitations of RCTs in the transplant setting often including small size and short follow-up. These limitations are only partly solved by meta-analyses of RCTs. Data from high-quality ODBs are not only often useful in this setting but also have limitations. Biases may be difficult or impossible to identify and/or adjust for. However, ODBs have large numbers of diverse subjects receiving diverse therapies and analyses that often give answers more useful to clinicians than RCTs. Side-by-side comparisons suggest analyses from high-quality ODBs often give similar conclusions to meta-analyses of high-quality RCTs. Meta-analyses combining data from RCTs and ODBs are sometimes appropriate. Quantitation of expert opinion, when of high quality, is also useful: experts rarely disagree under precisely defined circumstances and their consensus conclusions are often concordant with results of high-quality RCTs and ODBs. We suggest increased use of ODBs and expert opinion as reliable and effective ways to determine relative efficacies of new therapies in transplant settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19182830What 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.