ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2015
Critical appraisal of the role of ruxolitinib in myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis.
Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Philadelphia chromosome-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: revised management recommendations from European LeukemiaNet.Leukemia · 2018Guideline
- Genomic profile helps to predict the clonal evolution and outcome of BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms.Translational oncology · 2025Article
- Role of JAK inhibitors in myeloproliferative neoplasms: current point of view and perspectives.International journal of hematology · 2022Review
- Does ruxolitinib really prolong survival in individuals with myelofibrosis? The never-ending story.Blood advances · 2022Article
- Article
- Synergic Crosstalk between Inflammation, Oxidative Stress, and Genomic Alterations in BCR-ABL-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasm.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- JAK Inhibition for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis: Limitations and Future Perspectives.HemaSphere · 2020Review
- Standard care and investigational drugs in the treatment of myelofibrosis.Drugs in context · 2019Review
- Ponatinib Inhibits Multiple Signaling Pathways Involved in STAT3 Signaling and Attenuates Colorectal Tumor Growth.Cancers · 2018Article
- Article
- Evolving Therapeutic Strategies for the Classic Philadelphia-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.EBioMedicine · 2016Review
- Setting Appropriate Goals for the Next Generation of Clinical Trials in Myelofibrosis.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent approval of molecular-targeted therapies for myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis (MPN-MF) has dramatically changed its therapeutic landscape. Ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is now widely used for first- and second-line therapy in persons with MPN-MF, especially those with disease-related splenomegaly, intermediate- or high-risk disease, and constitutional symptoms. The goal of this work is to critically analyze data supporting use of ruxolitinib in the clinical settings approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA). We systematically reviewed the literature and analyzed the risk of biases in the two randomized studies (COMFORT I and COMFORT II) on which FDA and EMA approval was based. Our strategy was to apply the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach by evaluating five dimensions of evidence: (1) overall risk of bias, (2) imprecision, (3) inconsistency, (4) indirectness, and (5) publication bias. Based on these criteria, we downgraded the evidence from the COMFORT I and COMFORT II trials for performance, attrition, and publication bias. In the disease-associated splenomegaly sphere, we upgraded the quality of evidence because of large effect size but downgraded it because of comparator choice and outcome indirectness (quality of evidence, low). In the sphere of treating persons with intermediate- or high-risk disease, we downgraded the evidence because of imprecision in effect size measurement and population indirectness. In the sphere of disease-associated symptoms, we upgraded the evidence because of the large effect size, but downgraded it because of comparator indirectness (quality of evidence, moderate). In conclusion, using the GRADE technique, we identified factors affecting the quality of evidence that were otherwise unstated. Identifying and evaluating these factors should influence the confidence with which physicians use ruxolitinib in persons with MPN-MF.
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.