Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27257325›Full record

ReviewMedical journal, Armed Forces India2016

Minimal residual disease detection using flow cytometry: Applications in acute leukemia.

T Chatterjee, R S Mallhi, S Venkatesan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Multiparametric Whole Blood Dissection: A one-shot comprehensive picture of the human hematopoietic system.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2017
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T ChatterjeeCommandant, 166 Military Hospital, C/o 56 APO, India.
R S MallhiProfessor, Department of Immunohaematology & Blood Transfusion, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune 411040, India.
S VenkatesanAssistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune 411040, India.
Armed Forces Medical College · INCommand Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimal residual disease (MRD) describes disease that can be diagnosed by methodologies other than conventional morphology, and includes molecular methods (like polymerase chain reaction (PCR)) or flow cytometry (FCM). Detection and monitoring of MRD is becoming the standard of care, considering its importance in predicting the treatment outcome. MRD aids in identifying high-risk patients and hence therapy can be intensified in them while deintensification of therapy can prevent long-term sequelae of chemotherapy in low-risk category. FCM is considered as a less labor-intensive and faster MRD technique as compared to PCR although it has its own share of disadvantages. Current immune-based methodologies for detection of MRD depend on establishing leukemia-associated aberrant immunophenotype (LAIP), at diagnosis or relapse and use this information at specified time points for detection of MRD, or apply a standardized panel of antibody combinations for all MRD cases, in a different-from-normal approach. This review highlights MRD detection by FCM and its application in acute leukemia.

Indexed as

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)Acute myeloid leukemia (AML)Flow cytometryMinimal residual disease (MRD)

Identifiers

PMID27257325
PMCPMC4878947
OpenAlexW2334440363

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.