ArticleBlood advances2023
A simple prognostic system in patients with myelofibrosis undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a CIBMTR/EBMT analysis.
Article in Blood advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Scores and Risk Stratification of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: 2026 Updates.Cancers · 2026Review
- Health Care Utilization Databases obtained from health system inform outcome for ruxolitinib treatment in patients with myelofibrosis.HemaSphere · 2026Article
- Impact of Donor Type on Outcomes After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Myelofibrosis: A Study on Behalf of the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT.American journal of hematology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant for Myelofibrosis and Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Contemporary Review.American journal of hematology · 2025Review
- Role of molecular alterations in transplantation decisions for patients with primary myelofibrosis.Blood advances · 2025Article
- Navigating 'grey areas' and challenges during evaluation of transplant eligibility in specific myelofibrosis populations: a perspective on behalf of the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT.Bone marrow transplantation · 2025Review
- Prognostic and Predictive Models in Myelofibrosis.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2024Review
- Donor types and outcomes of transplantation in myelofibrosis: a CIBMTR study.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Treosulfan compared to busulfan in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelofibrosis: a registry-based study from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT.Bone marrow transplantation · 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
51 authors at 20 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
Abstract
To develop a prognostic model for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for myelofibrosis (MF), we examined the data of 623 patients undergoing allo-HCT between 2000 and 2016 in the United States (the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research [CIBMTR] cohort). A Cox multivariable model was used to identify factors prognostic of mortality. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to patients who received transplantation in Europe (the European Bone Marrow Transplant [EBMT] cohort; n = 623). Patient age >50 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.96), and HLA-matched unrelated donor (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.98-1.7) were associated with an increased hazard of death and were assigned 1 point. Hemoglobin levels <100 g/L at time of transplantation (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.2-2.19) and a mismatched unrelated donor (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.25-2.52) were assigned 2 points. The 3-year overall survival (OS) in patients with a low (1-2 points), intermediate (3-4 points), and high score (5 points) were 69% (95% CI, 61-76), 51% (95% CI, 46-56.4), and 34% (95% CI, 21-49), respectively (P < .001). Increasing score was predictive of increased transplant-related mortality (TRM; P = .0017) but not of relapse (P = .12). The derived score was predictive of OS (P < .001) and TRM (P = .002) but not of relapse (P = .17) in the EBMT cohort as well. The proposed system was prognostic of survival in 2 large cohorts, CIBMTR and EBMT, and can easily be applied by clinicians consulting patients with MF about the transplantation outcomes.
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.