SynthesisCurrent medical science2026
Efficacy and Safety of Romiplostim in the Treatment of Aplastic Anemia: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Current medical science, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRomiplostim, a second‑generation thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPO‑RA), has been increasingly investigated for aplastic anemia (AA) across various populations and treatment settings; however, its overall efficacy, optimal dose, safety profile, and sources of heterogeneity across studies have not been systematically quantified and validated. This study aims to perform an up‑to‑date systematic review and single‑arm meta‑analysis to comprehensively assess the overall efficacy and safety of romiplostim in AA patients.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to March 3, 2026, without language restrictions. Two independent reviewers screened literature, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). A random-effects model was applied in Stata 15.1 to pool overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CRR); subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity and robustness.
resultsNineteen studies with 382 patients were included. The pooled ORR was 72.4% (95% CI: 61.9%-81.9%), and CRR was 25.5% (95% CI: 18.4%-33.1%). Patients receiving 20 μg/kg romiplostim achieved higher ORR (77.6% vs. 51.7%) and CRR (29.3% vs. 17.0%) than those receiving 10 μg/kg (P = 0.081). Patients aged <60 years showed higher ORR (74.9% vs. 49.3%) than those ≥60 years (P = 0.298). Tolerability was favorable, with low discontinuation rate (2.1%) and no treatment-related deaths.
conclusionRomiplostim demonstrates promising efficacy and safety in AA, with enhanced outcomes at 20 μg/kg and in younger patients. Further high-quality trials are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42268485What 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.