Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36485160›Full record

ArticleHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2022

Risk stratifying MDS in the time of precision medicine.

Mario Cazzola

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Mario CazzolaFondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are myeloid neoplasms characterized by morphologic dysplasia, persistent cytopenia, and a variable risk of evolution to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Risk stratification is crucial in a patient-centered approach to the treatment of MDS. Based on hematologic parameters and cytogenetic abnormalities, the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System is currently used for this purpose. In the past years, the use of massively parallel DNA sequencing has clarified the genetic basis of MDS and has enabled development of novel diagnostic and prognostic approaches. When conventional cytogenetics is combined with gene sequencing, more than 90% of patients are found to carry a somatic genetic lesion. In addition, a portion of patients has germline variants that predispose them to myeloid neoplasms. The recently developed International Consensus Classification of MDS includes new entities that are molecularly defined-namely, SF3B1-mutant and TP53-mutant MDS. The International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS has just developed the International Prognostic Scoring System-Molecular (IPSS-M) for MDS, which considers hematologic parameters, cytogenetic abnormalities, and somatic gene mutations. The IPSS-M score is personalized and can be obtained using a web-based calculator that returns not only the individual score but also the expected leukemia-free survival, overall survival, and risk of AML transformation. Providing an efficient risk stratification of patients with MDS, the IPSS-M represents a valuable tool for individual risk assessment and treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Leukemia, Myeloid, AcuteMyelodysplastic SyndromesChromosome AberrationsHumansPrecision MedicinePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID36485160
PMCPMC9821394
OpenAlexW4311136478

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.