ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2013
WHO classification of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN): A critical update.
Review in Current hematologic malignancy reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Synoptic Diagnostics of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Morphology and Molecular Genetics.Cancers · 2021Review
- Time for revival of the red blood cell count and red cell mass in the differential diagnosis between essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera?Haematologica · 2019Article
- The 2016 WHO classification and diagnostic criteria for myeloproliferative neoplasms: document summary and in-depth discussion.Blood cancer journal · 2018Review
- The Role of MicroRNAs in Myeloproliferative Neoplasia.International journal of hematology-oncology and stem cell research · 2016Review
- Changing incidence of myeloproliferative neoplasms: trends and subgroup risk profiles in the USA, 1973-2011.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2015Article
- Classification of Cancer Primary Sites Using Machine Learning and Somatic Mutations.BioMed research international · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the revised World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis and classification of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) were defined by a panel of expert hematopathologists and clinicians, controversy has been repeatedly expressed questioning the clinical usefulness and reproducibility of these diagnostic guidelines. In particular, the distinction between essential thrombocythemia (ET), early/prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and initial stages of polycythemia vera (PV) is still a matter of debate. In this context, it has been argued that clinical correlations with histological features were not firmly substantiated. On the other hand, recently published data from independently performed studies have repeatedly validated the reproducibility of the WHO criteria and provided persuasive evidence that discrimination of early/prefibrotic PMF has a significant impact on the risk of myelofibrotic and leukemic transformation. However, as has been explicitly required, the WHO concept is based on the recognition of characteristic bone marrow patterns and a consensus of clinical and molecular data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24146204What OpenQuestion holds
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.