ArticleBone marrow transplantation2023
External validation and extended application of the transplant conditioning intensity score in acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
21 authors at 17 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to validate the utility of the transplant conditioning intensity (TCI) score in 1714 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing allogeneic bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (BMT/PBSCT) and assess its applicability to 753 patients with AML undergoing umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) both during first complete remission. Patients classified into a high TCI group accounted for 63% and 56% in the BMT/PBSCT and UCBT cohorts, respectively. In the BMT/PBSCT cohort, the risk of relapse was lower in patients in the high versus intermediate TCI group (P = 0.002), although non-relapse mortality (NRM) did not differ among the three TCI groups. In the UCBT cohort, both relapse and NRM did not differ among the TCI groups. Increasing cutoff points for intermediate and high TCI categories significantly improved the ability to predict relapse and NRM in the BMT/PBSCT cohort (P = 0.030 and 0.006, respectively), and relapse but not NRM in the UCBT cohort (P = 0.005 and 0.364, respectively). These findings highlight the difference in the threshold level of the TCI score for outcome discrimination between European and Japanese cohorts. The TCI scheme appears less effective for UCBT than for BMT/PBSCT.
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.