SynthesisBioMed research international2018
The VAD Scheme versus Thalidomide plus VAD for Reduction of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thalidomide Reduces Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Immunostaining in Canine Splenic Hemangiosarcoma.Veterinary sciences · 2020Article
- Tumor vasculature remolding by thalidomide increases delivery and efficacy of cisplatin.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The VAD (vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) regimen has been used for decades to treat multiple myeloma (MM). Based on reports that vascular endothelial growth factor- (VEGF-) mediated angiogenesis is critical for MM pathogenesis, the antiangiogenic compound thalidomide has been added to VAD (T-VAD). However, it remains unclear whether T-VAD is more efficacious than VAD for serum VEGF reduction or if the difference influences clinical outcome. Pubmed, Cochrane library, China Biomedical Literature (CBM) database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, Vip database, and Wanfang database were searched for relevant studies published up to June 2017. RevMan5.2 was used for methodological quality evaluation and data extraction. Thirteen trials (five randomized, seven nonrandomized, and one historically controlled) involving 815 cases were included. Serum VEGF was significantly higher in MM cases than non-MM controls (MD=353.01, [95%CI 187.52-518.51], P<0.01), and the overall efficacy of T-VAD was higher than that of VAD (RR=1.36, [1.21-1.53], P <0.01). Further, T-VAD reduced VEGF to a greater extent than VAD does ([MD=-49.85, [-66.28- -33.42], P<0.01). The T-VAD regimen also reduced VEGF to a greater extent in newly diagnosed MM patients than it did in recurrent patients ([MD=-120.20, [-164.60--39.80], P<0.01). There was no significant difference in VEGF between T-VAD patients (2 courses) and nontumor controls (MD=175.94, [-26.08-377.95], P=0.09). Greater serum VEGF reduction may be responsible for the superior efficacy of T-VAD compared to VAD.
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.