| Title |
Induction regimens for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s138932 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zi-Hang Zeng, Jia-Feng Chen, Yi-Xuan Li, Ran Zhang, Ling-Fei Xiao, Xiang-Yu Meng |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare the early efficacy and survivals of induction regimens for transplant-eligible patients with untreated multiple myeloma. A comprehensive literature search in electronic databases was conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible studies were selected according to the predefined selection criteria, before they were evaluated for methodological quality. Basic characteristics and data for network meta-analysis (NMA) were extracted from included trials and pooled in our meta-analysis. The end points were the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). A total of 14 RCTs that included 4,763 patients were analyzed. The post-induction ORR was higher with bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone (VTD) regimens, and VTD was better than the majority of other regimens. For OS, VTD plus cyclophosphamide (VTDC) regimens showed potential superiority over other regimens, but the difference was not statistically significant. The PFS was longer with thalidomide plus doxorubicin plus dexamethasone (TAD) regimens for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The NMA demonstrated that the VTD, VTDC, and TAD regimens are most beneficial in terms of ORR, OS, and PFS for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, respectively. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 28% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,299,348
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#57
of 2,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,051
of 313,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,014 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.