ArticleBone marrow transplantation2012
Single center retrospective analysis of BU-based conditioning regimens in allogeneic transplantation.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Busulfan fludarabine vs busulfan cyclophosphamide as a preparative regimen before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis.Bone marrow transplantation · 2016Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a single institution retrospective analysis of 114 patients treated with BU-based pretransplant conditioning regimens. Oral BU was administered to 76 patients (total dose 16 mg/kg or 8 mg/kg) and i.v. BU to 38 others (total dose 12.8 mg/kg or 6.4 mg/kg). Either CY (n=74) or fludarabine (n=40) was given in combination with BU. Median age was 35 years in the oral BU group and 48.5 years with i.v. BU (P<0.001). OS and PFS rates at 3-years post HSCT were not different in patients who received either i.v. or oral BU (OS: 41.3 vs 44.0% (P=0.981); PFS: 52.7 vs 54.7% (P=0.526), respectively). The i.v. BU, however, was associated with a significantly shorter time to engraftment (13.5 days vs 16 days, respectively; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in survival or 100-day mortality for patients who received either CY or fludarabine, in combination with BU. After adjustment for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that age of transplant (P=0.002), donor type (sibling or unrelated; P=0.003), GVHD (P<0.05) and route of administration (P=0.023) were significant risk factors for OS. The i.v. BU used in an older age group yielded equivalent survival compared with oral BU used in a younger population.
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.