ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
External quality assessment for PML-RARα detection in acute promyelocytic leukemia: Findings and summary.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- External quality assessment for PML-RARα detection in acute promyelocytic leukemia: Findings and summary.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe confirmation of clinical diagnosis, molecular remission, and sequential minimal residual disease monitoring required PML-RARα detection in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). The current status of PML-RARα detection in various laboratories remains unknown.
methodsIn 2018, external quality assessment (EQA) for PML-RARα detection was carried out in China. Three EQA sample panels for PML-RARα isoform L/S/V were prepared by different mock leukocyte samples. The performances of PML-RARα detection, including admission screening, and qualitative and quantitative detection by real-time quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR), were assessed based on APL simulated clinical case.
resultsThe mock leukocyte samples met the requirements of a clinically qualified sample for PML-RARα EQA panel. Among the laboratories, 13/50 (26.0%) were "competent," 21/50 (42%) classified as "acceptable," and 16/50 (32.0%) classified as "improvable." One (1/50, 2.0%) laboratory reported one screening mistake. Twenty-six (26/50, 52.0%) laboratories reported 29 false-positive and 19 false-negative results. Twenty-three (23/50, 46.0%) laboratories reported 42 quantitative incorrect results.
conclusionSignificant differences were not found in PML-RARα detection performance among laboratories that used different extraction methods. The performances of qualitative and quantitative RT-qPCR detection were worse accurate for PML-RARα isoform V. Quantitative variation was higher for low-level samples. Further continuous external assessment and education are needed in the management of PML-RARα detection.
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.