SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2025
Meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy and safety of new drugs in combination with chemotherapy in primary plasmoblastic lymphoma.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of regimens combining new drugs (bortezomib, etc.) with chemotherapy in the treatment of plasmaoblastoid lymphoma (PBL). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting Proceedings, Cochrane Controlled Trials Center Registry, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, and meeting abstracts were searched for quality evaluation based on Cochrane Risk and Jadad scores and other assessment tools. Patients were divided into subgroup 1 (traditional treatment vs. no treatment) and subgroup 2 (traditional treatment vs. combination of new drugs) based on medication use, and Revman 5.4 software was applied for statistical analysis. A total of 12 papers were included, including 410 patients with PBL. Meta-analysis results: the objective remission rate (ORR) of patients in the combination of new drugs group was higher than that of the traditional treatment group [56.8% (25/44) vs. 70.2% (66/94); OR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.58-2.78, P = 0.002 < 0.05], and the progression-free survival (PFS) rate of patients in the combination of new drugs group was higher than that of the traditional treatment group. the progression survival (PFS) was better than traditional treatment group (HR = 2.22, 95%CI 1.71-2.90, P < 0.001), and the heterogeneity between the results of each study I = 95%; there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.81, 95%CI 0.44-7.46, P = 0.41), and grade 3-4 adverse events (AE) (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.27-7.46, P = 0.002 < 0.05). 95%CI 0.27-2.71, P = 0.78) were not statistically different. The regimen combining new drugs is an effective means to improve the prognosis of PBL, with better ORR and PFS than the traditional regimen, and there is no statistically significant difference between the two adverse events. However, the small sample size of this study increases the possibility of bias and the results need to be treated with caution.
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.