ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Trilaciclib for the Prevention of Myelosuppression in Patients with Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of trilaciclib in preventing myelosuppression in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Based on the use of trilaciclib, 81 patients were divided into a primary prevention group (PP group, n = 49) and a secondary prevention group (SP group, n = 32). The incidence of myelosuppression, antibiotic usage rate, survival outcomes, and other treatment-related toxicities were analyzed using chi-square tests and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in the SP group was significantly higher than that in the PP group (96.9% vs. 79.6%), with a significantly higher proportion of grade III and above events (37.6% vs. 8.2%,
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.