ReviewFrontiers in oncology2016
Diagnostic Utility of Flow Cytometry in Myelodysplastic Syndromes.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Prognostic Value of the CD8Hematology reports · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of flow cytometry in myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS): Composition of a FCM-prognostic score (FCM-PS) for overall survival.HemaSphere · 2026Article
- A microfluidic bone marrow chip for the safety profiling of biologics in pre-clinical drug development.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Immunophenotyping myelodysplastic neoplasms: the role of flow cytometry in the molecular classification era.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Dynamics of human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell differentiation to the erythroid lineage.Experimental hematology · 2023Review
- Immunophenotypic changes of monocytes in myelodysplastic syndrome and clinical significance.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Article
- AQP0 is a novel surface marker for deciphering abnormal erythropoiesis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2021Article
- Myelodysplastic syndrome: validation of flow cytometry multilineage score system.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
- OMIP-049: Analysis of Human Myelopoiesis and Myeloid Neoplasms.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2018Article
- Review
- The Use of Flow Cytometry in Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) are clonal disorders of hematopoiesis that exhibit heterogeneous clinical presentation and morphological findings, which complicates diagnosis, especially in early stages. Recently, refined definitions and standards in the diagnosis and treatment of MDS were proposed, but numerous questions remain. Multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) is a helpful tool for the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected MDS, and various scores using MFC data have been developed. However, none of these methods have achieved the sensitivity that is required for a reassuring diagnosis in the absence of morphological abnormalities. One reason may be that each score evaluates one or two lineages without offering a broad view of the dysplastic process. The combination of two scores (e.g., Ogata and Red Score) improved the sensitivity from 50-60 to 88%, but the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) must be improved. There are prominent differences between study groups when these scores are tested. Further research is needed to maximize the sensitivity of flow cytometric analysis in MDS. This review focuses on the application of flow cytometry for MDS diagnosis and discusses the advantages and limitations of different approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.