SynthesisAnnals of hematology2022
Comparative efficacy of 19 drug therapies for patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a multiple-treatments network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of hematology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of fostamatinib in refractory immune thrombocytopenia: a meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials.Annals of hematology · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy of thalidomide combined with low-dose rituximab and low-dose rituximab alone in the treatment of steroid-resistant/refractory adult patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia: an open-label trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The 2022 review of the 2019 American Society of Hematology guidelines on immune thrombocytopenia.Blood advances · 2024Review
- First-line Therapy for Immune Thrombocytopenia: Time for Change.HemaSphere · 2022Article
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
Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is the most common clinical bleeding disorder with a high mortality rate and poor long-term survival quality in severe patients. There is controversy on how to choose the appropriate treatment. We systematically reviewed 19 randomized controlled trials (including 2615 participants) from January 1, 2015, to April 20, 2021. These investigations compared multiple drugs or their combinations in the therapeutic dose range for the treatment of ITP. The primary endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who responded to these therapies. The efficacy of eltrombopag plus rituximab, avatrombopag, dexamethasone plus anti-HP, and dexamethasone plus rhTPO was significantly higher than placebo (OR: 46.66, 29.44, 2.66, 1.86) or dexamethasone alone (OR: 46.22, 29.01, 2.22, 1.40). Placebo, oral immunosuppressants, and dexamethasone plus oseltamivir were less effective than the other ITP therapies tested. Eltrombopag plus rituximab may be the best choice when starting treatment for ITP.
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.