Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35510118›Full record

ReviewCytoJournal2022

Flow cytometry, molecular analysis, and other special techniques (in Serous Fluid Cytopathology).

Ali Gabali

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CytoJournal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ali GabaliDirector of Hematopathology and Hematopathology Fellowship, Department of Pathology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Karmanos Cancer Center, Detroit, Michigan, United States.
Wayne State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morphological and architectural pattern evaluations play a major role in the rpretation of hematopoietic neoplasms. However, confirmation of diagnosis, classification, prognosis, and risk stratification are highly dependent on the utilization of multiple ancillary studies. The importance of these ancillary studies increases in evaluating serous fluid samples, as these samples lack architecture and patterns. Likewise, the morphology can be disturbed by sample preparation. The most common ancillary studies utilized are flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry for immunophenotyping, Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH), cytogenetics for structural and gene rearrangements, and molecular studies for mutational analysis. Among them, flow cytometry analysis is the handiest test to perform with high diagnostic yield on serous fluid specimens. In this article we will discuss the use, caveat, and role of the most common ancillary studies on serous fluid specimen evaluation. This review article will be incorporated finally as one of the chapters in CMAS (CytoJournal Monograph/Atlas Series) #2. It is modified slightly from the chapter by the initial authors (Choladda Vejabhuti, MD and Chung-Che (Jeff) Chang, MD, PhD) in the first edition of Diagnostic Cytopathology of Serous Fluids.

Indexed as

CytogeneticsFlow cytometryFluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH)ImmunohistochemistryLeukemiaLymphomaMolecular analysisSerous Fluid

Identifiers

PMID35510118
PMCPMC9063502
OpenAlexW4221046462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.