The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents for the treatment of cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the risk of early and late cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents in patients treated for breast or ovarian cancer, lymphoma, myeloma or sarcoma. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were sought using comprehensive searches of electronic databases in June 2008. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also scanned for additional articles. Outcomes investigated were early or late clinical and sub-clinical cardiotoxicity. Trial quality was assessed, and data were pooled through meta-analysis where appropriate. RESULTS: Fifty-five published RCTs were included; the majority were on women with advanced breast cancer. A significantly greater risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was found with anthracycline compared with non-anthracycline regimens (OR 5.43 95% confidence interval: 2.34, 12.62), anthracycline versus mitoxantrone (OR 2.88 95% confidence interval: 1.29, 6.44), and bolus versus continuous anthracycline infusions (OR 4.13 95% confidence interval: 1.75, 9.72). Risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was significantly lower with epirubicin versus doxorubicin (OR 0.39 95% confidence interval: 0.20, 0.78), liposomal versus non-liposomal doxorubicin (OR 0.18 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.38) and with a concomitant cardioprotective agent (OR 0.21 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.33). No statistical heterogeneity was found for these pooled analyses. A similar pattern of results were found for subclinical cardiotoxicity; with risk significantly greater with anthracycline containing regimens and bolus administration; and significantly lower risk with epirubicin, liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin but not epirubicin, and with concomitant use of a cardioprotective agent. Low to moderate statistical heterogeneity was found for two of the five pooled analyses, perhaps due to the different criteria used for reduction in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. Meta-analyses of any cardiotoxicity (clinical and subclinical) showed moderate to high statistical heterogeneity for four of five pooled analyses; criteria for any cardiotoxic event differed between studies. Nonetheless the pattern of results was similar to those for clinical or subclinical cardiotoxicity described above. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is not sufficiently robust to support clear evidence-based recommendations on different anthracycline treatment regimens, or for routine use of cardiac protective agents or liposomal formulations. There is a need to improve cardiac monitoring in oncology trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309 · cited 1×
“Each study was critically appraised for methodological quality using recognised criteria [20].”
MethodMuch ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events
Bradburn, M. J., Deeks, J. J., Berlin, J. A., & Russell Localio, A. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2528 · Cited by 938
Cited by
van der Graaf, W. T., Blay, J.-Y., Chawla, S. P., Kim, D.-W., Bui-Nguyen, B., Casali, P. G., Schöffski, P., Aglietta, M., Staddon, A. P., Beppu, Y., et al. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60651-5 · Cited by 2,102
Curigliano, G., Lenihan, D., Fradley, M., Ganatra, S., Barac, A., Blaes, A., Herrmann, J., Porter, C., Lyon, A. R., Lancellotti, P., et al. (2020) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2019.10.023 · Cited by 1,031
Armenian, S. H., Hudson, M. M., Mulder, R. L., Chen, M. H., Constine, L. S., Dwyer, M., Nathan, P. C., Tissing, W. J. E., Shankar, S., Sieswerda, E., et al. (2015) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70409-7 · Cited by 570
Self-citationTopoisomerases as anticancer targets
Delgado, J. L., Hsieh, C.-M., Chan, N.-L., & Hiasa, H. (2018) · Biochemical Journal · doi:10.1042/bcj20160583 · Cited by 481
Bodai, B. I., & Tuso, P. (2015) · The Permanente Journal · doi:10.7812/tpp/14-241 · Cited by 397
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, L. A., Cornelius, V. R., Plummer, C. J., Levitt, G., Verrill, M., Canney, P., & Jones, A.
- Venue
- BMC Cancer
- Published
- 2010-06-29
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 337-337
- ISSN
- 1471-2407 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2112351355
- Cited by
- 753
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 4.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents for the treatment of cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2407-10-337
- The paper
- Smith, L. A., Cornelius, V. R., Plummer, C. J., Levitt, G., Verrill, M., Canney, P., & Jones, A. (2010). Cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents for the treatment of cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-10-337
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.