Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22639108›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2012

Diagnosis of acute leukemia in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF-acute leukemia).

Erick Crespo-Solis, Xavier López-Karpovitch, Jesús Higuera, Beatriz Vega-Ramos

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Metabolites · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Erick Crespo-SolisClínica de Leucemia Aguda, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Ciudad de México, México. erickerickmx@yahoo.com.mx
Xavier López-Karpovitch
Jesús Higuera
Beatriz Vega-Ramos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cerebrospinal fluid-acute leukemia (CSF-acute leukemia) is a frequent and serious complication in patients with acute leukemia. One of the major problems of this complication is the diagnosis process itself. CSF cytology is currently considered the gold standard for establishing the diagnosis, a technique which presents various processing limitations, seriously impacting the predictive values. In the last 11 years, studies of CSF flow cytometry analysis done in patients with acute leukemia have demonstrated superiority in comparison with CSF cytology. Although comparative studies between these two techniques have been reported since 2001, no new consensus or formal changes to the gold standard have been established for the CSF acute leukemia diagnosis. The evidence suggests that positive flow cytometry cases, considered as indeterminate cases, will behave like disease in the central nervous system (CNS). Nevertheless, we think there are some variables and considerations that must be first evaluated under research protocols before CNS relapse can be established with only one positive flow cytometry analysis in the setting of indeterminate CSF samples. This paper proposes a diagnostic algorithm and complementary strategies.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseCentral Nervous System NeoplasmsFlow CytometryHumansLeukemiaLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteLeukemia, Promyelocytic, AcuteMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm ProteinsNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.