ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2019
Prolonged low-dose infusion for gemcitabine: a systematic review.
Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systemic Chemotherapy in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Mechanisms, Clinical Applications, and Evidence-Based Regimens.Cancers · 2025Review
- Designing MOF-Thermogel Nanocomposites for Differential Multidrug Release in Combination Cancer Therapy.ACS applied nano materials · 2025Article
- Combination of Low-Dose Gemcitabine and PD-1 Inhibitors for Treatment in Patients With Advanced Malignancies.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Predictive value of exosomes and their cargo in drug response/resistance of breast cancer patients.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present standard dose of gemcitabine (Gem), a pyrimidine antimetabolite, is 1,000-1,250 mg/m
methodsWe searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CNKI, for trials. Keywords were "Gem," "prolonged infusion," and "low-dose." In addition, we used the Cochrane Handbook V5.1.0 and methodological index for non-randomized studies to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, respectively. Furthermore, Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and the PRISMA statement were adopted.
resultsWe systematically reviewed 19 studies (5 RCTs and 14 non-RCTs). All studies assessed the efficacy and safety of Gem administered as a prolonged low-dose infusion (P-LDI) and reported that Gem administered as P-LDI was effective and well tolerated.
conclusionGem administered as P-LDI is effective, safe, and economical, especially suited for patients with poor performance status or without good economic condition.
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.