SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2022
Efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of CD22-specific and CD19/CD22-bispecific CAR-T cell therapy in patients with hematologic malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- A randomized comparison of etoposide and cyclophosphamide for stem cell mobilization in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Impact of Bone Marrow Involvement on the Success of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients With Lymphoma.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- AMD3100 modulates the secretome responses of human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells but not their inhibitory effect on T cell proliferation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Immunomodulatory Agents and Factors in Poor Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization: Current Strategies and Future Prospects.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Superiority of high-dose cytarabine-based mobilisation over cyclophosphamide or plerixafor in primary CNS lymphoma.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Efficacy of chemotherapy with G-CSF versus plerixafor with G-CSF in autologous stem cell mobilization for lymphoma patients.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Assessing the health and economic burden of obesity-related complications in East-Asian populations: implementation of risk equations in the Core Obesity Model for Japan and model validation.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Antiretrovirals to CCR5 CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing - A paradigm shift chasing an HIV cure.Clinical immunology (Orlando, Fla.) · 2023Review
- Article
- The Progress of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma (Review).Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
- Evaluation of efficacy and safety in the use of cytarabine for mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells in a reference hospital in northeastern Brazil.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEfficient mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from bone marrow niche into circulation is the key to successful collection and transplantation in patients with hematological malignancies. The efficacy of various HSCs mobilization regimens has been widely investigated, but the results are inconsistent.
methodsWe performed comprehensive databases searching for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that comparing the efficacy of HSCs mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with WinBUGS. Standard dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF SD) was chosen as the common comparator. Estimates of relative treatment effects for other regimens were reported as mean differences (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with associated 95% credibility interval (95% CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were obtained to present rank probabilities of all included regimens.
resultsDatabases searching and study selection identified 44 eligible RCTs, of which the mobilization results are summarized. Then we compared the efficacy of mobilization regimens separately for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) by including 13 eligible trials for network meta-analysis, involving 638 patients with MM and 592 patients with NHL. For patients with MM, data are pooled from 8 trials for 6 regimens, including G-CSF in standard dose (SD) or reduced dose (RD) combined with cyclophosphamide (CY), intermediate-dose cytarabine (ID-AraC) or plerixafor. The results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, 3 regimens including ID-AraC + G-CSF SD (MD 14.29, 95% CrI 9.99-18.53; SUCRA 1.00), G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 4.15, 95% CrI 2.92-5.39; SUCRA 0.80), and CY + G-CSF RD (MD 1.18, 95% CrI 0.29-2.07; SUCRA 0.60) are associated with significantly increased total number of collected CD34
conclusionsIn conclusion, ID-AraC plus G-CSF is associated with the highest probability of being best mobilization regimen in patients with MM. For patients with NHL, G-CSF in combination with plerixafor or YF-H-2015005 showed similar improvements in HSCs mobilization efficacy. The relative effects of other chemotherapy-based mobilization regimens still require to be determined with further investigations.
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.