ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2018
Bone Marrow Biopsy Operator Experience and Impact on Aspirate, Biopsy, and Ancillary Testing Quality.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05258357 (Landmark vs. Ultrasound-Assisted Bone Marrow Biopsy Procedure Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Landmark vs. Ultrasound-Assisted Bone Marrow Biopsy Procedure Study
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Diagnostic Precision in Malignant Hematological Disorders Through Risk Factor Analysis for High-Quality Bone Marrow Aspirate.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- Multisite sampling improves consensus cytologic interpretation in bone marrow evaluation of dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Multi-site bone marrow core biopsy improves diagnostic accuracy in dogs with hematologic disease.PloS one · 2026Article
- Bone marrow evaluation in neuroblastomas: bone marrow aspirates have little additional value over trephine biopsies.BJC reports · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Bone Marrow Aspirate and Biopsy Educational Program Utilizing Task Trainers.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Article
- Feasibility of artificial intelligence-supported assessment of bone marrow infiltration using dual-energy computed tomography in patients with evidence of monoclonal protein - a retrospective observational study.European radiology · 2022Observational
- Bone marrow biopsy and aspiration: a departmental financial comparison in a rural hospital.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- A Synoptic Reporting System to Monitor Bone Marrow Aspirate and Biopsy Quality.Journal of pathology informatics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the relationship between bone marrow (BM) biopsy operator experience and both specimen quality and ancillary testing utilization. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe evaluated all referred and in-house (IH) BM biopsy specimens obtained over a contiguous 6-week period from April 3, 2017, to May 19, 2017. The BM specimens were assessed for the length of interpretable marrow, and aspirates were assessed for the presence of spicules. Subgroup comparisons included IH BM obtained by a trained team of nurses within our institution, patients clinically referred (CR) to our institution with outside-obtained BM specimens, and outside pathologist-referred (PR) consultation cases. Ancillary study usage was compared between the first 100 cases of each group.
resultsA total of 1191 BM specimens were analyzed, including 600 IH, 288 CR, and 303 PR cases with biopsies and/or aspirates. The average interpretable biopsy lengths of IH, CR, and PR cases were 16.0 mm, 10.0 mm, and 7.0 mm, respectively (
conclusionHaving a dedicated team of BM biopsy operators is likely one factor contributing to improved BM biopsy quality and a reduced need for ancillary testing.
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.