Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24116002›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Comparison of allogeneic stem cell transplantation and non-transplant approaches in elderly patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome: optimal statistical approaches and a critical appraisal of clinical results using non-randomized data.

Ronald Brand, Hein Putter, Anja van Biezen, Dietger Niederwieser, Rodrigo Martino, Ghulam Mufti, Francesco Onida, Argiris Symeonidis, Christoph Schmid, Laurent Garderet and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

18 authors at 14 institutions in 7 countries.

Ronald BrandDepartment of Statistics, University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Hein Putter
Anja van Biezen
Dietger Niederwieser
Rodrigo Martino
Ghulam Mufti
Francesco Onida
Argiris Symeonidis
Christoph Schmid
Laurent Garderet
Marie Robin
Michel van Gelder
Jürgen Finke
Martin Bornhäuser
Guido Kobbe
Ulrich Germing
Theo de Witte
Nicolaus Kröger
Leiden University Medical Center · NLHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEDélégation Paris 7 · FRFaculty of Media · SIFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITHospital de Sant Pau · ESLeipzig University · DEMaastricht University · NLOtemae Hospital · JPRadboud University Medical Center · NLSorbonne Université · FRUniversity Hospital Augsburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) from related or unrelated donors may cure patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), a heterogeneous group of clonal stem cell disorders. We analysed 384 elderly patients (55-69 years) with advanced MDS who received either ASCT (n=247) and were reported to The European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) or a non -transplant approach (n=137) reported to the Düsseldorf registry. Besides an attempt to answer the question of "comparison", the purpose of this work is to explain the difficulties in comparing a non-transplant with a transplant cohort, when death before transplant is likely but unknown and the selection of patients for transplant is based on assumptions. It shows which methods are almost always biased and that even the most sophisticated approaches crucially rely on clinical assumptions. Using the most appropriate model for our data, we derive an overall univariate non-significant survival disadvantage for the transplant cohort (HR: 1.29, p = 0.11). We show that such an "average" hazard ratio is however misleading due to non-proportionality of the hazards reflecting early treatment related mortality, the occurring of which is logically correlated with the interval between diagnosis and transplant creating a disproportional drop in the (reconstructed) survival curve of the transplanted patients. Also in multivariate analysis (correcting for age > 60 (HR: 1.4, p = 0.02) and abnormal cytogenetics (HR: 1.46, p = 0.01)), transplantation seems to be worse (HR: 1.39, p = 0.05) but only in the (incorrect but commonly applied) model without time varying covariates. The long term (time depending) hazard ratio is shown to be virtually 1 and overall survival is virtually identical in both groups. Nonetheless no conclusion can be reached from a clinical point of view without assumptions which are by their very nature untestable unless all patients would be followed from diagnosis.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyelodysplastic SyndromesPrognosisStem Cell TransplantationTransplantation, HomologousTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24116002
PMCPMC3792099
OpenAlexW2010244729

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.