SynthesisBlood advances2026
Conventional therapy vs HMA or LDAC with or without venetoclax in older adults with AML: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Blood advances, 2026. 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractThis systematic review summarizes the evidence informing 2 recommendations from the updated American Society of Hematology guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in older adults, comparing conventional induction and postremission therapy vs hypomethylating agents (HMA)- or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC)-based strategies, with or without venetoclax. We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL through February 2024, and monitored these databases for new studies throughout November 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Reviewers screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, conducted random-effects meta-analyses, and rated certainty of evidence using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation). We included 21 studies (3 RCTs, 18 NRS). Compared with HMA- or LDAC-based monotherapy, conventional 7+3-type remission induction therapy may reduce mortality at longest follow-up (risk ratio [RR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.04; low certainty), increase complete remission rates (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.25-2.38; high certainty), and may reduce recurrence at longest follow-up (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64-1.04; low certainty). Conventional therapies probably increase most severe toxicities (moderate certainty). Compared with HMA or LDAC combined with venetoclax, very low certainty evidence suggests that conventional therapy may reduce 1-year mortality (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), increase allogeneic transplant rates (RR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.70-3.06), result in no important differences in complete remission or recurrence, and have variable effects on severe toxicities. Conventional therapy may have benefits over HMA or LDAC alone; however, compared with HMA or LDAC plus venetoclax, the evidence remains of very low certainty.
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.