ReviewBlood research2022
Korean clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of hereditary hemolytic anemia.
Review in Blood research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transforming hematological research documentation with large language models: an approach to scientific writing and data analysis.Blood research · 2025Review
- Crosstalk: Biochemical Signatures and Clinical Implications in Rare Hereditary Hemolytic Anemias (Hereditary Spherocytosis).Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Article
- Complications of delayed diagnosis and challenges: successfully managed SPTB gene variant hereditary spherocytosis with hepatocellular jaundice-a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
- Current Status of Molecular Diagnosis of Hereditary Hemolytic Anemia in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- Utilization of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Test and the Prevalence of Enzyme Deficiency in Korea.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the prevalence of hereditary hemolytic anemia (HHA) is relatively low in Korea, it has been gradually increasing in recent decades due to increment in the proportions of hemoglobinopathies from immigrants of South East Asia, raising awareness of the disease among clinicians, and advances in diagnostic technology. As such, the red blood cell (RBC) Disorder Working Party (WP), previously called HHA WP, of the Korean Society of Hematology (KSH) developed the Korean Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the diagnosis of HHA in 2007. These SOPs have been continuously revised and updated following advances in diagnostic technology [e.g., flow cytometric osmotic fragility test (FOFT) and eosin-5-maleimide (EMA) binding test], current methods for membrane protein or enzyme analysis [e.g., liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)], and molecular genetic tests using next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, the diagnosis and treatment of HHA remain challenging as they require considerable experience and understanding of the disease. Therefore, in this new Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis of HHA, on behalf of the RBC Disorder WP of KSH, updated guidelines to approach patients suspected of HHA are summarized. NGS is proposed to perform prior to membrane protein or enzyme analysis by LC-MS/MS, UPLC-MS/MS or HPLC techniques due to the availability of gene testing in more laboratories in Korea. We hope that this guideline will be helpful for clinicians in making diagnostic decisions for patients with HHA in Korea.
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.