Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20051958›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2010

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in oncology: a study-level meta-analysis of survival and other safety outcomes.

J Glaspy, J Crawford, J Vansteenkiste, D Henry, S Rao, P Bowers, J A Berlin, D Tomita, K Bridges, H Ludwig

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. SEOM clinical guidelines for anaemia treatment in cancer patients (2020).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

J GlaspyDepartment of Medicine-Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, 100 UCLA Medical Plaza, Suite 550, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6996 USA. jglaspy@mednet.ucla.edu
J Crawford
J Vansteenkiste
D Henry
S Rao
P Bowers
J A Berlin
D Tomita
K Bridges
H Ludwig

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer patients often develop the potentially debilitating condition of anaemia. Numerous controlled studies indicate that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can raise haemoglobin levels and reduce transfusion requirements in anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. To evaluate recent safety concerns regarding ESAs, we carried out a meta-analysis of controlled ESA oncology trials to examine whether ESA use affects survival, disease progression and risk of venous-thromboembolic events.

methodsThis meta-analysis included studies from the 2006 Cochrane meta-analysis, studies published/updated since the 2006 Cochrane report, and unpublished trial data from Amgen and Centocor Ortho Biotech. The 60 studies analysed (15 323 patients) were conducted in the settings of chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy, radiotherapy only treatment or anaemia of cancer. Data were summarised using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsResults indicated that ESA use did not significantly affect mortality (60 studies: OR=1.06; 95% CI: 0.97-1.15) or disease progression (26 studies: OR=1.01; 95% CI: 0.90-1.14), but increased the risk for venous-thromoboembolic events (44 studies: OR=1.48; 95% CI: 1.28-1.72).

conclusionThough this meta-analysis showed no significant effect of ESAs on survival or disease progression, prospectively designed, future randomised clinical trials will further examine the safety and efficacy of ESAs when used according to the revised labelling information.

Indexed as

AnemiaHematinicsHumansNeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeHematinics

Identifiers

PMID20051958
PMCPMC2816662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.