Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23085692›Full record

ReviewDer Pathologe2012

[Bone marrow biopsy: processing and use of molecular techniques].

L Quintanilla-Martinez, M Tinguely, I Bonzheim, F Fend

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Pathologe, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L Quintanilla-MartinezInstitut für Pathologie und Neuropathologie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Liebermeisterstr 8, 72076 Tübingen, Deutschland. leticia.quintanilla-fend@med.uni-tuebingen.de
M Tinguely
I Bonzheim
F Fend
Universitätsklinikum Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid technological development in diagnostic pathology, especially of immunohistochemical and molecular techniques, also has a significant impact on diagnostic procedures for the evaluation of bone marrow trephine biopsies. The necessity for optimal morphology, combined with preservation of tissue antigens and nucleic acids on one hand and the wish for short turnaround times on the other hand require careful planning of the workflow for fixation, decalcification and embedding of trephines. Although any kind of bone marrow processing has its advantages and disadvantages, formalin fixation followed by EDTA decalcification can be considered a good compromise, which does not restrict the use of molecular techniques. Although the majority of molecular studies in haematological neoplasms are routinely performed on bone marrow aspirates or peripheral blood cells, there are certain indications, in which molecular studies such as clonality determination or detection of specific mutations need to be performed on the trephine biopsy. Especially, the determination of B- or T-cell clonality for the diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies requires stringent quality controls and knowledge of technical pitfalls. In this review, we discuss technical aspects of bone marrow biopsy processing and the application of diagnostic molecular techniques.

Indexed as

Biopsy, NeedleIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesBiomarkers, TumorBone MarrowBone Marrow ExaminationChromosome AberrationsDNA Mutational AnalysisGenetic MarkersImmunohistochemistryLeukemiaLymphomaMyelodysplastic-Myeloproliferative DiseasesPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID23085692
OpenAlexW31581321

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.