ArticleBlood cell therapy2025
Reduced-versus Standard-dose Melphalan as Single-agent Conditioning Regimen in Auto HSCT for Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Blood cell therapy, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal conditioning dose of melphalan for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) in multiple myeloma remains a subject of debate. While prior studies have presented conflicting evidence on whether standard-dose melphalan (SDM, 200 mg/m Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to consolidate existing studies and assess whether standard-dose melphalan confers a significant benefit in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to reduced-dose melphalan, while also evaluating secondary outcomes non-relapse mortality (NRM), transplant-related mortality (TRM), and engraftment time (ET). Methods: A comprehensive literature search across four electronic databases (i.e., The Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Google Scholar) identified six eligible studies published in the last 10 years, with a pooled sample size of 3,721 patients. The meta-analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes (OS and PFS) using hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with effect sizes calculated based on reported Results: For overall survival, no significant difference was seen between standard-dose and reduced-dose melphalan (95% CI: -0.025 to 0.217, Conclusions: Although standard-dose melphalan shows better survival trends, statistical analysis shows no significant difference in overall or progression-free survival. The small effect sizes also suggest these differences are not clinically meaningful. Due to lack of clear survival benefit between SDM and RDM, choice should be based on other important patient factors like risk of side effects and ability to tolerate treatment.
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.