SynthesisBMC cancer2026
Prediction models for CAR-T Cell therapy-related adverse events in hematologic malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRS and ICANS: Early detection and personalized management.Blood research · 2026Review
- Cardiotoxicity of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
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
backgroundIdentifying patients at high risk of adverse events is crucial in chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy to enable early intervention. Despite the development of numerous prediction models, their methodological quality and performance remain systematically unassessed.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search across seven databases and Google Scholar, covering all records up to October 29, 2025. The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Only the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) results from external validation cohorts were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.
resultsTwenty-nine studies were included, reporting 26 distinct prediction models. The most common predictors were platelet count, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6. Ten models underwent external validation, and six reported calibration. The PROBAST assessment indicated a high risk of bias across all studies. Pooled AUCs from external validation cohorts ranged from 0.60 to 0.79.
conclusionPooled AUC estimates indicate moderate discrimination of the included models. However, these estimates reflect discriminative ability under uncertainty rather than direct clinical readiness.
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.