ArticleAnnals of hematology2022
Comparative efficacy and safety of eleven induction chemotherapy regimens for young adult patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: a network meta-analysis.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of venetoclax and azacitidine for acute myeloid leukemia in China: a real-world single-center study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Adding venetoclax or hypomethylating agents to induction chemotherapy as first-line treatment for adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a retrospective case-cohort study.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The optimal induction chemotherapy regimens for young adult patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are not well-defined since the lack of direct comparisons between emerging treatments. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical tool to integrate direct and indirect evidence to evaluate the effect of multiple interventions. Thus, we conducted an NMA to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of different inductions for these patients. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from establishment to 2020-03-11. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using different inductions were included. We deemed 11 trials eligible, including 11 inductions with 5052 participants. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. In terms of complete remission (CR) rate, DAC ranked highest and was significantly higher than IA (RR = 1.27, 95% CI (1.09-1.48)) and DA (RR = 1.28, 95% CI (1.13-1.46)) (p < 0.05). The ranking of DA + Pioglitazone was second only to that of DAC, followed by HAA. For early mortality, HAD, HAA, and DA + GO were significantly higher than DA/IA (p < 0.05). DAC and DA + Pioglitazone showed similar early mortality compared to DA/IA (p > 0.05). Regarding incidence of early grade 3-4 infection, no significant differences between interventions were observed. To conclude, among the included 11 induction regimens, DAC was potentially the top choice for young adult patients with newly diagnosed AML, with highest CR rate, low early mortality, and incidence of early infection. DA + Pioglitazone and HAA also showed a superiority over the others to achieve higher CR rate, while caution should be kept in mind due to the higher early mortality of HAA.
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.