SynthesisCell transplantation
Comparative Efficacy and Clinical Outcomes of Haploidentical Stem Cell Transplantation to Other Stem Sources for Treatment in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cell transplantation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modified EASIX score on day 7 predicts survival and non-relapse mortality in pediatric acute leukemia undergoing haploidentical stem cell transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation with haploidentical versus HLA-matched donors in patients with higher-risk MDS.Bone marrow transplantation · 2023Article
- Donor HLA mismatch promotes full donor T-cell chimerism in the allogeneic stem cell transplant with reduced-intensity conditioning and post-transplant cyclophosphamide GVHD prophylaxis.Annals of hematology · 2023Article
- Clinical Significance of Haplo-Fever and Cytokine Profiling After Graft Infusion in Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation From Haplo-Identical Donors.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- The Roles of γδ T Cells in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Cell transplantationReview
- Characterization of Serous Cell-Free DNA in Myelodysplastic Syndromes.Cell transplantationArticle
- Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Management of Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Retrospective, Current, and Future Perspective.Cell transplantationReview
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 use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is recommended during the first complete remission of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). However, only 30% of these cases have fully matched sibling donors (MSDs). Alternatively, matched unrelated donors (MUDs) and haploidentical (haplo) donors from first-degree relatives increase the access to transplantation, with some reported differences in outcomes. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted with the aim of summarizing the results of those studies to compare the efficacy and toxicity of MSD-HSCT and MUD-HSCT versus haplo-HSCT for patients with AML or MDS. Articles published before September 15, 2018, were individually searched for in two databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) by two investigators. The effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from each eligible study were combined using the Mantel-Haenszel method. A total of 14 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall survival rates were not significantly different between the groups, with pooled odds ratios of the chance of surviving at the end of the study when comparing haplo-HSCT to MSD-HSCT and comparing haplo-HSCT to MUD-HSCT of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.70 to 1.04;
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.