A retrospective study comparing azacitidine with decitabine in Chinese patients with refractory anemia with excess blast based on two clinical trials in a single center.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Efficacy of epigenetic agents for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023
   Pooled it
2. Dynamics of PD-1 expression are associated with treatment efficacy and prognosis in patients with intermediate/high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes under hypomethylating treatment.Frontiers in immunology · 2022
   Article
3. Evaluation of Reduced-Dose Decitabine and Azacitidine for Treating Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
   Article

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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as