ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
A comparative study of the impact of lineal relatives versus collateral relatives donor on prognosis in haplo-HSCT for aplastic anemia.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the impact of Lineal and Collateral donors on the prognosis of recipients in haplo-HSCT for AA among relatives. Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from AA patients who underwent haplo-HSCT at our center from January 2018 to January 2025. Patients were grouped based on the kinship between donors and recipients (Lineal vs. Collateral), and comparisons were made across key indicators, including engraftment, viral reactivation, GVHD, OS, and GRFS. Results: The study included 190 AA patients who received haplo-HSCT. Based on donor type, they were divided into the Lineal group (134 patients) and the Collateral group (56 patients). The results showed that the 3-year OS (92.8% vs. 75.3%, Conclusion: The study suggests that Collateral donors represent a viable and effective option, particularly in the absence of Lineal donors. The age of the donor and recipient is a critical factor influencing transplantation outcomes, with younger donors and patients potentially enhancing therapeutic efficacy.
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.