ArticleCureus2021
Bone Marrow Findings in Renal Patients: A Single Renal Specialist Center Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study evaluated the importance of bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy (BM) for the diagnosis of underlying hematological abnormalities in renal patients. Methods This cross-sectional study on BM was carried out between August 2010 and April 2019, in our specialist renal center for various unexplained hematological abnormalities in patients with renal diseases [chronic kidney disease (CKD), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring maintenance hemodialysis (MHD), patients with normal renal function but other nephrology and urology issues like stone disease and nephrotic syndrome]. Results Out of 176 reported BM examinations, 48 (27.3%) were done on ESRD patients on MHD (CKD-D), and 69 (39.2%) on CKD patients not on MHD (CKD-nD). Fifty-nine (33.5%) BM were done on patients with normal renal function (n-CKD). The indication for BM was pancytopenia 50 (28.4%), unexplained anemia 39 (22.2%), and unexplained thrombocytopenia 43 (24.4%). In 91 (51.7%) patients BM was normal. In 30 (17%) patients multiple myeloma (MM) was diagnosed on BM, out of which 18 (26.1%), nine (18%), three (5.3%) were CKD-nD, CKD-D, and n-CKD patients, respectively. In 11 (6.3%) patients BM was suggestive of myelodysplasia (MD), out of these 11 patients, five (10%) were CKD-D patients. Conclusion BM is an underutilized method of diagnosis of hematological abnormalities in renal patients. Our study revealed the importance of BM examination, especially in patients with CKD.
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.