Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38838228›Full record

SynthesisBlood advances2024

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential as a prognostic factor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jasmine Singh, Nancy Li, Elham Ashrafi, Le Thi Phuong Thao, David J Curtis, Erica M Wood, Zoe K McQuilten

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Blood advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Hematopoietic Aging and Leukemia: Mechanistic and Therapeutic Insights.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  13. DifferentCancers · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jasmine SinghSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2088-9260
Nancy LiDepartment of Haematology, Eastern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Elham AshrafiSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Le Thi Phuong ThaoSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9661-6835
David J CurtisAustralian Centre for Blood Diseases, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9497-0996
Erica M WoodSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7527-2340
Zoe K McQuiltenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9698-7185

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractWith advances in sequencing, individuals with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) are increasingly being identified, making it essential to understand its prognostic implications. We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing the risk of clinical outcomes in individuals with and without CHIP. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE and included original research reporting an outcome risk measure in individuals with CHIP, adjusted for the effect of age. From the 3305 studies screened, we included 88 studies with 45 to 470 960 participants. Most studies had a low-to-moderate risk of bias in all domains of the Quality in Prognostic Factor Studies tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in at least 3 studies. CHIP conferred an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.50), cancer mortality (HR, 1.46; 1.13-1.88), composite cardiovascular events (HR, 1.40; 1.19-1.65), coronary heart disease (HR, 1.76; 1.27-2.44), stroke (HR, 1.16; 1.05-1.28), heart failure (HR, 1.27; 1.15-1.41), hematologic malignancy (HR, 4.28; 2.29-7.98), lung cancer (HR, 1.40; 1.27-1.54), renal impairment (HR, 1.25; 1.18-1.33) and severe COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 1.18-1.80). CHIP was not associated with cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.09; 0.97-1.22), except in the subgroup analysis restricted to larger clones (HR, 1.31; 1.12-1.54). Isolated DNMT3A mutations did not increase the risk of myeloid malignancy, all-cause mortality, or renal impairment. The reasons for heterogeneity between studies included differences in definitions and measurements of CHIP and the outcomes, and populations studied. In summary, CHIP is associated with diverse clinical outcomes, with clone size, specific gene, and inherent patient characteristics important mediators of risk.

Indexed as

Clonal HematopoiesisCOVID-19DNA Methyltransferase 3AHumansMutationPrognosisDNA Methyltransferase 3ADNMT3A protein, human

Identifiers

PMID38838228
PMCPMC11298876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.