Evidence map›Paper›PMID 3061499›Full record

ReviewBlut1988

Routine immunophenotyping of acute leukaemias.

H G Drexler, S M Gignac, J Minowada

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Blut, 1988. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

H G DrexlerRoyal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Academic Department of Haematology, London, UK.
S M Gignac
J Minowada

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent progress in immunophenotyping includes the availability of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), knowledge of specificity and reactivity patterns of these reagents, and the technical improvements and standardization of immunofluorescence and immunocytology staining procedures, including flow cytometry. These advances have contributed significantly to the establishment of immunophenotyping as an essential diagnostic tool in the differential diagnosis of types of acute leukaemia. Immunophenotyping allows for the objective and reproducible distinction of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) from acute myeloblastic leukaemia (AML) and of T-lineage from B-lineage ALL. Immunologically defined ALL and AML subtypes have been found to convey prognostic significance. Using cell lineage-specific and differentiation stage-specific MAbs, cases of T- and B-lineage ALL and of AML can be further classified into a number of different subtypes. Routine immunophenotyping concentrates on the diagnostic enquiry into a few major, clinically relevant subtypes; only a limited number of crucial reagents are employed that are commercially available. The simplification and standardization of discriminatory immunomarker panels make immunophenotyping a reliable diagnostic instrument for the provision of critical data to make a differential diagnosis. An effort to identify the nature and origin of the blast cells precisely, immunological typing definitely plays an important part in the multiple-marker analysis of acute leukaemia (morphology, cytochemistry, karyotyping, genotyping) for applied diagnostic and fundamental research purposes.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalPhenotypeAcute DiseaseBiomarkers, TumorHumansLeukemiaAntibodies, MonoclonalBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID3061499

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.