ReviewInternational journal of hematology2022
Improving allogeneic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis.
Review in International journal of hematology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib: eligibility, best practices, and improving transplant outcomes.Annals of hematology · 2025Review
- Outcomes of allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation for myelofibrosis in children and adolescents: the retrospective study of the EBMT Paediatric Diseases WP.Bone marrow transplantation · 2024Article
- Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelofibrosis: prognostic indicators and the role of JAK2V617F measurable-residual disease monitoring by droplet-digital polymerase chain reaction.Annals of hematology · 2023Article
- Impact of TP53 on outcome of patients with myelofibrosis undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Blood · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this review, we will outline dimensions in which outcome of patients with myelofibrosis undergoing curative treatment can be optimized: patient selection, transplant procedure, and posttransplant prevention or treatment of relapse. For patient selection, fortunately, as with several other hematologic malignancies, the management of patients with myelofibrosis has very much entered the molecular era, with the establishment of several driver and nondriver mutations, allowing more individualized selection for treatment. For the transplant procedure itself, different conditioning intensities do not seem to play a distinctive role with regards to outcome posttransplant but still need to be compared in the molecular era. While many patients nowadays may receive ruxolitinib before transplant, recent studies may facilitate fine-tuning and integration of ruxolitinib into the transplant algorithm. The role of novel inhibitors for the transplant setting remains unclear. For the posttransplant phase, evidence remains scarce, with experiences of donor-lymphocyte infusions for relapse management but more efforts are needed in understanding relapse and identifying and treating patients at high risk for relapse.
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.