SynthesisBMJ open2023
Prophylaxis for
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylaxis Regimens forJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of ibrutinib plus venetoclax for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma in China and the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Nivolumab-AVD versus Brentuximab Vedotin-AVD as First-Line Treatment for Advanced-Stage Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
- Cytokine Release Syndrome After CAR T-Cell Therapy in a 35-Year-Old Patient WithCase reports in medicine · 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
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone, once every 3 weeks (R-CHOP21) is commonly used in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), but accompanied by
designA two-part decision analytical model was developed. Prevention effects were determined by systemic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception to December 2022. Studies reporting results of PCP prophylaxis were included. Enrolled studies were quality assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Costs were derived from the Chinese official websites, and clinical outcomes and utilities were obtained from published literature. Uncertainty was evaluated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA). Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set as US$31 315.23/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (threefold the 2021 per capita Chinese gross domestic product).
settingChinese healthcare system perspective.
participantsNHL receiving R-CHOP21.
interventionsPCP prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis.
main outcome measuresPrevention effects were pooled as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated.
resultsA total of four retrospective cohort studies with 1796 participants were included. PCP risk was inversely associated with prophylaxis in NHL receiving R-CHOP21 (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; p=0.01). Compared with no prophylaxis, PCP prophylaxis would incur an additional cost of US$527.61, and 0.57 QALYs gained, which yielded an ICER of US$929.25/QALY. DSA indicated that model results were most sensitive to the risk of PCP and preventive effectiveness. In PSA, the probability that prophylaxis was cost-effective at the WTP threshold was 100%.
conclusionProphylaxis for PCP in NHL receiving R-CHOP21 is highly effective from retrospective studies, and routine chemoprophylaxis against PCP is overwhelmingly cost-effective from Chinese healthcare system perspective. Large sample size and prospective controlled studies are warranted.
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.