ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2017
Peripheral Smear Review and Bone Marrow Biopsy Correlation.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeripheral Blood Smear (PBS) interpretation is a useful skill for Haematology/Oncology Clinicians (HOC).
aimTo explore practice patterns of PBS utilization for all benign haematology diagnosis in a non-simulated environment and to evaluate how it may guide the HOC in determining further work up and whether or not to perform a Bone Marrow Biopsy (BMB). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review was conducted on 451 outpatient referrals for benign haematology diagnosis. Patient demographics and diagnostic tests were recorded. We further analysed cases in which a blood smear was ordered or reviewed. In cases with PBS review, we recorded testing ordered by the HOC.
resultsRecords of 451 patients met inclusion criteria. The median age was 55 with males representing 51.9% of the cohort. Distribution of disorders were 50.6% (n = 228) erythrocyte (RBC), 25.5% (n = 114) leukocyte (WBC), 11.3% (n = 51) platelet (PLT), and 12.8% (n = 58) "other." A CBC was ordered in 82.7% of cases (373/451). A PBS was ordered in 47.4% of CBCs obtained (177/373, p<0.001). Of these, documentation occurred in 49.2% (87/177) which led to further testing 41.4% of cases (36/87). A BMB was performed in 11.5% (10/87) of cases in which a PBS was reviewed compared to 4.3% (16/373) of cases where BMB was performed without PBS review (p=.019). Of the 36 cases in which PBS review led to testing, 10 BMBs (27.8%) were performed-all of which led to specific haematologic diagnosis. A specific diagnosis was found in 43.8% (7/16) BMBs performed without prior PBS review.
conclusionPBS interpretation is an important skill for HOCs. Haematology/Oncology (H/O) training programs should continue to teach this skill to increase proficiency in order to help guide diagnostic evaluation of various haematologic disorders.
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.