TABLE 4.
Summary of Findings | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality Assessment | No. Patients | ||||||||||
No. Studies (No. participants) | Design | Study limitations | Consistency | Directness | Precision | Other Considerations | No. Treated With Transplantation/Participants (%) | No. Not Treated With Transplantation/Participants (%) | Effect*† | Quality | Importance |
3 (19 graft recipients reported in 3 studies; outcome in 14 unmatched comparators available in 1 study‡) | 3 observational studies; 1 of these studies reports some data on an unmatched comparative population | No serious study limitations | Large range of dose exposures in which 7/19 cases may not have been exposed to radiation dose associated with inevitable bone marrow failure | No un equivocal evidence of engraftment or graft failure reported in 6 treated cases (5/6 of whom survived) from 1 study§ | No serious imprecision | Survival outcome strongly influenced by severity of damage to other organs and effects of treatment to prevent graft rejection and development of graft-vs-host disease | 19/33 (58) | 14/33 (42) | Survival observed in 2/13 (15%) treated patients Survival observed in 6/14 (43%) patients not treated | ⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate |
Critical|| |
Relative risk not calculable with available data.
Effect reported only for data aggregated for Chernobyl studies because recruitment/dose exposure (evidence of bone marrow failure and/or dose exposure not inevitably associated with bone).
Criticality accident, Chernobyl, former Soviet Union34 (marrow failure) and/or endpoint (engraftment) not clearly documented or proven.
Criticality accident, Boris Kidrich Institute, Vinca, Yugoslavia.35
Outcome of intervention has great clinical significance (survival vs death).