ArticleTurkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology2018
Myelodysplastic Syndrome in Pakistan: Clinicohematological Characteristics, Cytogenetic Profile, and Risk Stratification.
Article in Turkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Unidentified Cytopenia Truly Unidentified? Or Are We Overlooking Clonality?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Higher prevalence of poor prognostic markers at a younger age in adult patients with myelodysplastic syndrome - evaluation of a large cohort in India.Molecular cytogenetics · 2024Article
- Distinct Clinical and Prognostic Features of Myelodysplastic Syndrome in Patients from the Middle East, North Africa, and Beyond: A Systemic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The Dawn of next generation DNA sequencing in myelodysplastic syndromes- experience from Pakistan.BMC genomics · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMyelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a group of bone marrow diseases that not only have variable morphological presentation and heterogeneous clinical courses but also have a wide range of cytogenetic abnormalities. Clinicohematological parameters have a significant role in diagnosis and along with identification of cytogenetic abnormalities are important for prognostic scoring and risk stratification of patients to plan management and make treatment decisions. This study aimed to determine the clinicohematological characteristics, cytogenetic abnormalities, and risk stratification of newly diagnosed de novo MDS patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Hematology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rawalpindi, from January 2013 to January 2017. Patients were diagnosed on the basis of World Health Organization criteria for MDS, clinicohematological parameters were noted, and cytogenetic analysis was performed. Risk stratification was done using the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System.
resultsA total of 178 cases of MDS were analyzed, including 119 males (66.9%) and 59 females (33.1%). The median age was 58 years. The most common presenting feature was anemia in 162 (91%) of the patients. MDS with multilineage dysplasia was the most common diagnosis, seen in 103 (57.9%) patients. A normal karyotype was seen in 95 (53.4%), while 83 (46.6%) showed clonal karyotypic abnormalities at diagnosis. Of these, the common abnormalities found were trisomy 8, complex karyotype, and del 5q. Risk stratification revealed low-risk disease in 73 (41%) patients.
conclusionCytogenetic analysis showed the normal karyotype to be the most common while risk stratification revealed a predominance of low-risk disease at the time of presentation.
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.