ArticleJournal of hematology2024
Steady-State Versus Chemotherapy-Based Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma: A Single-Center Study to Analyze Efficacy and Safety.
Article in Journal of hematology, 2024. 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.
- Predicting adverse events for risk stratification of chemotherapy based stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell support is recommended in the treatment of eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of steady-state versus chemotherapy-based stem cell mobilization in our Hungarian patient population. Methods: The subjects were 210 MM patients who underwent stem cell mobilization procedure between 2018 and 2022. Solo granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered in 104 cases, while 106 patients received chemotherapy which was followed by G-CSF administration. We evaluated the ratio of successful mobilizations, the amount of collected stem cells, the incidence of infections and cost-effectivity in the two groups. Results: In the steady-state group, there was a significantly higher need for plerixafor (45% vs. 13%, P < 0.001), unsuccessful stem cell mobilization was more frequent (11% vs. 3%, P = 0.024) and the mean amount of collected stem cells was lower (6.9 vs. 9.8 × 10 Conclusions: Steady-state mobilization is a safe method; however, the higher rate of plerixafor administration and unsuccessful attempts may question its superiority to chemomobilization.
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.