ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Clinical effect of decitabine in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome and influencing factors.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of Vietnamese patients diagnosed with myelodysplastic neoplasms: Practical experience in a developing country.Leukemia research reports · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the effect of decitabine combined with conventional chemotherapy on myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and its influencing factors.
methodsEighty patients with MDS who were admitted to our hospital were selected by this study between February 2017 and February 2018. The selected patients were divided into a traditional group (CAG/DA scheme) and the combined group (DAC combined with CAG/DA scheme) according to the random number table method, 40 each. The clinical treatment effects of the two groups were compared, and the influencing factors of the effect were analyzed.
resultsAfter four courses of treatment, the difference in the total effective rate between the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05); the difference in the incidence of adverse reactions and in the overall survival (OS) rate between the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, the progression free survival (PFS) rate of the combined group was significantly higher compared with the traditional group (P<0.05); the Hb level, WHO stage and and karyotype of the patients before treatment had significant influence on the treatment effect (P<0.05).
conclusionDAC in combination with conventional chemotherapy has good effect in the treatment of MDS, and it will not increase adverse reactions. In addition to treatment scheme, the influencing factors of the effect of treatment for MDS also include Hb, WHO stage and karyotype.
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.