Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30504358›Full record

ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2018

How do we diagnose immune thrombocytopenia in 2018?

John G Kelton, John R Vrbensky, Donald M Arnold

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Immune attack on megakaryocytes in immune thrombocytopenia.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

3 authors.

John G KeltonMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Department of Medicine and Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
John R VrbenskyDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Donald M ArnoldMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Department of Medicine and Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this report, we will review the various clinical and laboratory approaches to diagnosing immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), with a focus on its laboratory diagnosis. We will also summarize the results from a number of laboratories that have applied techniques to detect anti-platelet autoantibodies as diagnostic tests for ITP. Although there is considerable variability in methods among laboratories, there is general agreement that platelet autoantibody testing has a high specificity but low sensitivity. This suggests several possibilities: (1) the ideal test for ITP has yet to be developed, (2) current test methods need to be improved, or (3) ITP is the clinical expression of a variety of thrombocytopenic disorders with different underlying mechanisms. Even the clinical diagnosis of ITP is complex, and experienced clinicians do not always agree on whether a particular patient has ITP. Improvements in the diagnostic approach to ITP are necessary to improve the management of this disorder.

Indexed as

AutoantibodiesClinical Laboratory TechniquesHumansPurpura, Thrombocytopenic, IdiopathicAutoantibodies

Identifiers

PMID30504358
PMCPMC6245958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.