ReviewBone marrow transplantation2017
Evolving concepts in prognostic scoring of chronic GvHD.
Review in Bone marrow transplantation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of the 2014 NIH chronic graft-versus-host disease scoring criteria modifications assessed in a large cohort of severely affected patients.Bone marrow transplantation · 2019Trial
- Patient-reported outcomes in chronic GVHD: instruments, clinical utility, and survivorship integration.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Review
- Predictors and significance of kidney dysfunction in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease.Bone marrow transplantation · 2023Article
- Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease, Nonrelapse Mortality, and Disease Relapse in Older versus Younger Adults Undergoing Matched Allogeneic Peripheral Blood Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Analysis.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2022Article
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic GvHD (cGvHD) remains one of the most complex and challenging complications after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Emerging knowledge about the clinical manifestations and associated organ involvement of cGvHD has led to the establishment of prognostic parameters for post-transplant survival among affected allograft recipients. Studies employing the pre-National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus data on cGvHD incidence and its risks have led to development of the CIBMTR's cGvHD risk stratification, which serves as the most refined and validated prognostic tool for estimating survival of patients with cGvHD. However, cGvHD global severity scoring has recently evolved as a powerful prognostic tool for patient survival in the post-NIH consensus era. Current use of the substantially redefined NIH criteria of cGvHD diagnosis and measurements of its severity makes it challenging to interpret prognostic scoring systems generated in the pre-NIH era. Some of the pre-NIH prognostic parameters, however, appear to retain their significance in predicting survival independently from the NIH global severity score. Thus, future analyses of prospective cohorts of patients with cGvHD defined by NIH consensus criteria will be critical in reconciling and integrating various prognostic scoring systems of cGvHD.
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.