ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2013
Primary myelofibrosis: risk stratification by IPSS identifies patients with poor clinical outcome.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Momelotinib versus ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor-naïve patients with myelofibrosis: an efficacy/safety analysis in the Japanese subgroup of the phase 3 randomized SIMPLIFY-1 trial.International journal of hematology · 2024Trial
- Addition of Navitoclax to Ongoing Ruxolitinib Therapy for Patients With Myelofibrosis With Progression or Suboptimal Response: Phase II Safety and Efficacy.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of Ruxolitinib versus Best Available Therapy in Treating Primary Myelofibrosis.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2022Article
- Guideline on myeloproliferative neoplasms: Associacão Brasileira de Hematologia, Hemoterapia e Terapia Cellular: Project guidelines: Associação Médica Brasileira - 2019.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy · 2019Article
- Identification of potential therapeutic target genes and miRNAs for primary myelofibrosis with microarray analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Lower-Risk Myelofibrosis Receiving Treatment with Ruxolitinib.Advances in hematology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether risk scores used to classify patients with primary myelofibrosis and JAK-2 V617F mutation status can predict clinical outcome.
methodsA review of clinical and laboratory data from 74 patients with primary myelofibrosis diagnosed between 1992 and 2011. The IPSS and Lille scores were calculated for risk stratification and correlated with overall survival.
resultsA V617F JAK2 mutation was detected in 32 cases (47%), with no significant correlation with overall survival. The patients were classified according to the scores: Lille - low, 53 (73.%); intermediate, 13 (18%); and high, 5 (7%); and IPSS- low, 15 (26%); intermediate-1, 23 (32%); intermediate-2, 19 (26%); and high, 15 (31%). Those patients presenting a higher risk according to the IPSS (high and intermediate-2) had a significantly shorter overall survival relative to the low risk groups (intermediate-1 and low) (p = 0.02).
conclusionsThese results emphasize the importance of the IPSS prognostic score for risk assessment in predicting the clinical outcome of primary myelofibrosis patients.
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.