Trial reportFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of the single-dose pegylated G-CSF vs. daily G-CSF for peripheral blood stem cells mobilization in donors: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells(PBSC) needs daily injection of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), which brings inconvenience to healthy donors. Can pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (Peg-G-CSF) solve this problem by single dose injection? Methods: This multicenter, randomized controlled study was conducted from May 2018 to April 2019. Eligible donors were randomly selected to received treatment with 12 mg Peg-G-CSF on day 1 or 10 µg/kg/d G-CSF consecutively from day 1. PBSC apheresis of the donors was conducted on day 5. The primary endpoint was the percentage of donors who collected ≥4×10 Results: Eighty (83.3%) of 96 donors in the Peg-G-SCF group and 76 (79.2%) of 96 donors in the G-CSF group collected ≥4×10 Conclusion: Mobilization via a single injection of Peg-G-CSF can match traditional G-CSF mobilization in terms of efficacy and safety and is expected to provide a better alternative to traditional G-CSF mobilization. Clinical Trial Registration: www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR1800015716.
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.