Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17384204›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2007

Guidance for fluorescence in situ hybridization testing in hematologic disorders.

Daynna J Wolff, Adam Bagg, Linda D Cooley, Gordon W Dewald, Betsy A Hirsch, Peter B Jacky, Kathleen W Rao, P Nagesh Rao, Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Committee, American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03719183 (Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Among Multiplex Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization, Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization Probe Panel and Conventional Cytogenetic Studies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03719183 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Among Multiplex Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization, Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization Probe Panel and Conventional Cytogenetic Studies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled120ConditionsAcute Myeloid LeukemiaArmsConventional Cytogenetics Studies, Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization (FISH) Panels, Multiplex FISH (M-FISH)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Daynna J WolffDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Adam Bagg
Linda D Cooley
Gordon W Dewald
Betsy A Hirsch
Peter B Jacky
Kathleen W Rao
P Nagesh Rao
Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Committee
American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee
Children's Mercy Hospital · USEducation Northwest · USMayo Clinic · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) provides an important adjunct to conventional cytogenetics and molecular studies in the evaluation of chromosome abnormalities associated with hematologic malignancies. FISH employs DNA probes and methods that are generally not Food and Drug Administration-approved, and therefore, their use as analyte-specific reagents involves unique pre- and postanalytical requirements. We provide an overview of the technical parameters influencing a reliable FISH result and encourage laboratories to adopt specific procedures and policies in implementing metaphase and interphase FISH testing. A rigorous technologist training program relative to specific types of probes is detailed, as well as guidance for consistent interpretation of findings, including typical and atypical abnormal results. Details are provided on commonly used dual-fusion, extra signal, and break-apart probes, correct FISH nomenclature in the reporting of results, and the use of FISH in relation to other laboratory testing in the ongoing monitoring of disease. This article provides laboratory directors detailed guidance to be used in conjunction with existing regulations to successfully implement a FISH testing program or to assess current practices, allowing for optimal clinical testing for patient care.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceCell NucleusChromosome BandingHematologic DiseasesHumansInterphaseMolecular ProbesMolecular Probes

Identifiers

PMID17384204
PMCPMC1867444
OpenAlexW1995894022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.