The use of individualized tumor response testing in treatment selection: second randomization results from the LRF CLL4 trial and the predictive value of the test at trial entry.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Prognostic models for newly-diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
   Pooled it
2. The long-term outcome of patients in the LRF CLL4 trial: the effect of salvage treatment and biological markers in those surviving 10 years.British journal of haematology · 2016
   Trial
3. Precision medicine: Statistical methods for estimating adaptive treatment strategies.Bone marrow transplantation · 2020
   Article
4. The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practice
   Review

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as