ArticleMedicine2019
Cyclophosphamide for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A protocol for systematic review.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Azilsartan as a preventive agent against cyclophosphamide-induced testicular injury in male rats.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Lactoferricin B Combined with Antibiotics Exhibits Leukemic Selectivity and Antimicrobial Activity.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- How Macrophages Become Transcriptionally Dysregulated: A Hidden Impact of Antitumor Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Optimizing treatment efficacy and fertility preservation in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A narrative review of ovarian shielding with total-body irradiation or treosulfan-based conditioning regimens.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious clinical trials have reported that cyclophosphamide can be used for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). However, its efficacy is still unclear. In this systematic review study, we aim to evaluate its efficacy and safety for ALL.
methodsThe following 9 databases will be searched from their inception to the present: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and four Chinese databases. The randomized controlled trials or case control studies of cyclophosphamide that assess the clinical efficacy and safety in patients with ALL are included. The methodological quality of all eligible included studies will be assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.The primary outcome measurement will be all-cause mortality at the period of treatment and follow-up. The secondary outcome measurements will include the health-related quality of life (HRQL), postinduction complete remission (CR) rate, event-free survival (EFS), relapse rate, and adverse events. Two authors will independently select eligible studies, exact data, and assess the methodological quality of included studies. RevMan 5.3 software will be used to synthesize the data. Reporting bias will be evaluated by the funnel plots, Begg, and Egger tests.
resultsThis systematic review will evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of cyclophosphamide for ALL. DISSEMINATION AND ETHICS: The findings of this review will summarize the present evidence of cyclophosphamide for ALL, and may provide guidance for clinical practice of cyclophosphamide for ALL. Its results will be published through peer-reviewed journals. This study does not need ethic approval, because it will not involve the individual data. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018119333.
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.