ArticlePloS one2017
Sources of error in measurement of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying measurable residual disease correctly.Leukemia · 2024Article
- Measurable residual disease as a biomarker in acute myeloid leukemia: theoretical and practical considerations.Leukemia · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe level of minimal residual disease (MRD) in marrow predicts outcome and guides treatment in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) but accurate prediction depends on accurate measurement.
methodsForty-one children with ALL were studied at the end of induction. Two samples were obtained from each iliac spine and each sample was assayed twice. Assay, sample and side-to-side variation were quantified by analysis of variance and presumptively incorrect decisions related to high-risk disease were determined using the result from each MRD assay, the mean MRD in the patient as the measure of the true value, and each of 3 different MRD cut-off levels which have been used for making decisions on treatment.
resultsVariation between assays, samples and sides each differed significantly from zero and the overall standard deviation for a single MRD estimation was 0.60 logs. Multifocal residual disease seemed to be at least partly responsible for the variation between samples. Decision errors occurred at a frequency of 13-14% when the mean patient MRD was between 10-2 and 10-5. Decision errors were observed only for an MRD result within 1 log of the cut-off value used for assessing high risk. Depending on the cut-off used, 31-40% of MRD results were within 1 log of the cut-off value and 21-16% of such results would have resulted in a decision error.
conclusionWhen the result obtained for the level of MRD is within 1 log of the cut-off value used for making decisions, variation in the assay and/or sampling may result in a misleading assessment of the true level of marrow MRD. This may lead to an incorrect decision on treatment.
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.