Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29188193›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2017

The Use of Flow Cytometry in Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Review.

Laiz Cameirão Bento, Rodolfo Patussi Correia, Cristóvão Luis Pitangueiras Mangueira, Rodrigo De Souza Barroso, Fernanda Agostini Rocha, Nydia Strachman Bacal, Luciana Cavalheiro Marti

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Neutrophil Subset Immunophenotyping.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Myelodysplastic syndromes.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022
    Review
  13. Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Diagnosis and Screening.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laiz Cameirão BentoHospital Israelita Albert Einstein-Clinical Pathology Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rodolfo Patussi CorreiaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein-Clinical Pathology Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cristóvão Luis Pitangueiras MangueiraHospital Israelita Albert Einstein-Clinical Pathology Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rodrigo De Souza BarrosoHospital Israelita Albert Einstein-Clinical Pathology Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fernanda Agostini RochaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein-Experimental Research Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
Nydia Strachman BacalHospital Israelita Albert Einstein-Clinical Pathology Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luciana Cavalheiro MartiHospital Israelita Albert Einstein-Experimental Research Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) are a heterogeneous group of hematopoietic stem cell diseases categorized by dysplasia in one or more hematopoietic cell lineages, as well as cytopenia and functional abnormalities in bone marrow cells. Several MDS classification methods have been proposed to categorize the disease and help professionals better plan in patients' treatment. The World Health Organization classification, released in 2008 and revised in 2016, is the currently and the most used classification method worldwide. Recent advances in MDS molecular biology and innovations in flow cytometry have enabled the development of new parameters for MDS diagnosis and classification. Several groups have published flow cytometry scores and guidelines useful for the diagnosis and/or prognosis of MDS, which are mostly based on detecting immunophenotypic abnormalities in granulocyte, monocyte, and lymphoid lineages. Here, we review the current literature and discuss the main parameters that should be analyzed by flow cytometry with the aim of refining MDS diagnosis and prognosis. Furthermore, we discuss the critical role of flow cytometry and molecular biology in MDS diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the current challenges and future perspectives involving these techniques.

Indexed as

clonal disorderdiagnosisflow cytometryhematopoietic cell lineagesmyelodysplastic syndromes

Identifiers

PMID29188193
PMCPMC5694750
OpenAlexW2768368995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.