ArticleJournal of clinical & experimental oncology2025
Efficacy of Interventions for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: An Umbrella Review.
Article in Journal of clinical & experimental oncology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Many systematic reviews have examined treatment efficacy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We performed an umbrella review of these systematic reviews to provide a comprehensive examination of the current body of evidence, aiming to scope current review-level evidence and identify weaknesses in these reviews. Methods: We identified systematic reviews examining efficacy of NDMM interventions in multiple databases published from January 1, 1990 through July 10, 2023. We explored potentially concerning issues which may compromise the validity of the conclusions in these reviews. We assessed the reviews' quality, summarized the findings, and present potential evidence gaps. Results: Eighty-seven reviews on NDMM treatment were included. Only seven assessed the strength of evidence. Treatments strategies like bortezomib-based induction for transplant-eligible patients, daratumumab for transplant-ineligible patients, and lenalidomide maintenance had moderate to high evidence. No reviews evaluated chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy or bispecific antibodies for NDMM. We identified five concerning issues: 1) inappropriate data abstraction (N=6), 2) inappropriate meta-analytic approaches (N=5), 3) not accounting for different induction strategies when evaluating the efficacy of consolidation/maintenance therapies (N=9), 4) implicit assumption that treatment efficacy is similar between transplant eligible and ineligible patients (N=13), and 5) inappropriate study selection (including observational studies or single-arm trials for treatment efficacy evaluation, which may lead to substantial biases; N=17). Conclusion: This umbrella review provided a contemporary analysis of treatment efficacy for NDMM. We identified several weaknesses in existing reviews, indicating additional scrutiny of publishing systematic reviews in MM is warranted.
Identifiers
41602219PMC12834558What 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.