ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of individual short-acting versus long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, including biosimilars, for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM), including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anaemia, is a common and potentially life-threatening complication in breast cancer patients. Despite the clinical availability of both short-acting and long-acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) for primary prophylaxis, evidence supporting the selection of the most appropriate therapeutic agent based on individual characteristics remains limited. This study employs a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to directly compare individualized G-CSF formulations, aiming to establish a definitive efficacy and safety ranking for clinical guidance. Methods and analysis: Randomised controlled trials of long-acting versus short-acting G-CSF therapy (both originator and biosimilar) in breast cancer patients with CIM will be identified via a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Chinese literature databases, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed, from inception to 30 September 2025. The main outcomes include the myelosuppression incidence/severity (e.g., neutropenia, thrombocytopenia), chemotherapy relative dose intensity (or dose reductions/delays due to neutropenia), overall survival, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, infection-related mortality, and adverse events. Two independent reviewers will perform document screening, study selection, and data extraction. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (V.2.0). The certainty of the evidence will be rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System. Ethics and dissemination: This systematic review is based on already published data, so it does not require ethical approval. The findings of this review will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.
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.