ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India2016
Flowcytometric comparative analysis in acute leukemias between Indian and proposed minimal screening panel.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing limited antibody panels for efficient hematological disorders diagnosis by flow cytometry in resource-constrained setting.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoid leukemia differ substantially in response to therapy and course, and accurate differentiation of the two is fundamental to therapeutic decisions. Immunophenotyping is used for this purpose, and various guidelines have been proposed regarding a minimal screening antibody panel. Most of them have been found inefficient.
methodsEighty-two cases of consecutive acute leukemias reporting to this hospital over a period of two years were included in the study. Peripheral blood smear, bone marrow aspirate, and bone marrow biopsy were studied using morphology, cytochemical stains, and relevant immunohistochemical stains on selected biopsy specimens. Flowcytometry analysis was carried out using Indian consensus screening panel and our proposed minimal screening panel (PMSP) for comparison.
resultImmunophenotyping using PMSP resulted in 95.12% accurate diagnosis versus Indian consensus minimal screening panel (ICMSP) with an accuracy of 92.68%. This result was statistically significant as per Chi Square tests.
conclusionPMSP can be used as a substitute for ICMSP, since it includes lineage-specific cytoplasmic antibodies, as well as lesser number of monoclonal antibodies, and enables us to diagnose mixed lineage leukemia. Fewer markers can be linked to a lower cost as well, which is relevant in a developing economy.
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.