ReviewTherapeutic advances in hematology2026
Real-world clinical outcomes of autologous stem cell transplantation in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systematic literature review.
Review in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic literature review analyzed real-world evidence on autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (ndMM) in China. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, major English and Chinese databases were searched for observational studies published between 2015 and 2025 that included Chinese ndMM patients eligible for ASCT. Extracted data covered patient characteristics, treatment responses, and survival outcomes associated with ASCT and non-ASCT treatments. Single-arm meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used for evidence synthesis and pooled outcomes of the treatments for the same phase were compared using Cochran's Results: Eighty-eight observational studies (2015-2025) were included. Data were pooled using single-arm meta-analysis and the pooled outcomes for ASCT and non-ASCT treatments were compared using Cochran's Conclusion: Chinese ASCT recipients had more favorable baseline profiles and achieved significantly better clinical outcomes than those receiving non-ASCT treatments. Plerixafor-based mobilization enhanced stem cell collection success. However, advanced stage, IgD subtype, and inadequate pre-ASCT response could discount the effectiveness of ASCT. INPLASY registration number: INPLASY2025110069.
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.