SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2025
Early mortality in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Dynamic white blood cell kinetics enable early risk stratification of differentiation syndrome in low- and intermediate-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Establishment and validation of a 28-day clinical outcome prediction model for acute promyelocytic leukemia based on an early platelet-coagulation factor combined transfusion strategy.American journal of cancer research · 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
backgroundIn patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), early mortality, defined as death within 30 days following diagnosis, is the main driver of overall survival. Intensivists play a pivotal role in the management of patients with APL.
methodThe PubMed and Embase databases were searched on December 1, 2023. All studies focusing on early mortality in patients with newly diagnosed APL were included. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and assessed bias using the risk-of-bias 2 scale for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for other types of studies. A meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed. The primary outcome was early mortality. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the differences between interventional and observational studies. Secondary outcomes included reasons for early mortality and the occurrence of severe hemorrhage or differentiation syndrome (DS).
resultsOf the 950 studies screened, 140 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 54,923 patients newly diagnosed with APL were included in the meta-analysis. A meta-analytical early mortality rate of 12% was calculated across 122 studies. Early mortality was lower in interventional studies (8%) than in observational studies (15%). Hemorrhage was the main cause of early mortality (57%), followed by sepsis (18%), DS (12%), and thrombotic events (2%). In a meta-regression, early mortality was influenced by patients' age, white blood cell count at diagnosis, time, study type, and country of origin according to income classification.
conclusionThere is an encouraging decrease over time of early mortality in patients with APL. Early mortality is lower in interventional studies. This result reflects the difficulty of translating the successes of RCT and interventional research into real-world clinical practice. This study puts forward the need to improve and standardize early management, notably in the intensive care unit.
trial registrationThis study's protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42023488480).
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.