ReviewCureus2025
Nilotinib Versus Imatinib in Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (Ph+ CML): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Philadelphia-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (Ph+ CML) has witnessed significant advancements in treatment. Both nilotinib and imatinib have demonstrated potential in handling CML; however, a comprehensive evaluation of their comparative efficacy is crucial for optimizing treatment decisions. The primary objective of this study is to compare the rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), major molecular response (MMR), and other clinical outcomes, including anemia, rash, and hyperbilirubinemia, in patients treated with either nilotinib or imatinib. An extensive literature search of reliable databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, and Science Direct, was carried out to find the relevant literature. The subject headings and keywords searched were "imatinib", "nilotinib", "Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia", and "Ph+ CML". A statistical analysis was done using RevMan 5.4.1 (Cochrane 2020). Pooled effects were used to estimate the odds ratio (OR), hazard ratios (HR), and risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). I
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.