ArticleBlood research2017
Is long term storage of cryopreserved stem cells for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation a worthwhile exercise in developing countries?
Article in Blood research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cryopreservation and storage patterns of hematopoietic progenitor stem cells for multiple myeloma.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStem cell units (SCUs) that are cryopreserved prior to both autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (for donor lymphocyte infusion) remain unused or partially used several times, and become an increased burden to blood banks/SCU repositories. Because of the scarcity of data regarding the duration for which the storage is useful, there is no general consensus regarding disposal of SCUs.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective audit of SCU utilization in 435 patients who planned to undergo either autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) (N=239) or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) (N=196) at a tertiary cancer care center between November 2007 to January 2015.
resultsOur cohort consisted of 1,728 SCUs stored for conducting auto-SCT and 729 SCUs stored for conducting donor lymphocyte infusions (DLIs) after allo-SCT. Stem cells were not infused in 12.5% of patients who had planned to undergo auto-SCT, and 80% of patients who underwent allo-SCT never received DLI. Forty-one percent of SCUs intended for use in auto-SCT remained unutilized, with a second auto-SCT being performed only in 4 patients. Ninety-four percent of SCUs intended for carrying out DLIs remained unused, with only minimal usage observed one year after undergoing allo-SCT.
conclusionThe duration of storage of unused SCUs needs to be debated upon, so that a consensus can be reached regarding the ethical disposal of SCU.
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.