SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Impact of mutations in epigenetic modifiers in acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers and advances in AML-MRC: from bench to bedside.Annals of hematology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prognostic significance of epigenetic mutations on the overall survival (OS) in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). We searched for studies evaluating epigenetic mutations in AML (up to November 2018) in PubMed, Trip database and Cochrane library. Hazard ratio (HR) of outcomes were extracted, and random-effects model was used to pool the results. A total of 10,002 citations were retrieved from the search strategy; 42 articles were identified for the meta-analysis (ASXL1 = 7, TET2 = 8, DNMT3A = 12, IDH =15), with fair to good-quality studies. The pooled HR was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.49-2.36) for ASXL1 mutation, 1.39 (95% CI: 1.18-1.63) for TET2 mutation, 1.35 (95% CI 1.16-1.56) for DNMT3a and 1.54 (95% CI: 1.15-2.06) for IDH mutation. However, there was a substantial heterogeneity in the DNMT3a and IDH studies. In conclusion epigenetic mutations in ASXL1, TET2, DNMT3a and IDH adversely impact OS in patients with AML albeit with considerable heterogeneity and possibly publication bias. Further studies are required to address these limitations.
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.