ArticleBlood advances2023
Consensus recommendations on peripheral blood smear review: defining curricular standards and fellow competency.
Article in Blood advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generalizable self-supervised learning for imaging flow cytometry on multi-dataset leukocyte differential.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
- Interpretable multiple instance learning for hematologic diagnosis from peripheral blood smears.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable Multiple Instance Learning for Hematologic Diagnosis from Peripheral Blood Smears.Research square · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a peripheral blood smear assessment tool using cloud-based full-field digital microscopy.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Graduate medical education training in hematology in North America is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Trainees routinely review peripheral blood smears (PBS) in providing clinical care. Competency in PBS review at graduation is required by the ACGME. However, there are no consensus guidelines on best practices surrounding PBS review, education, or competency. We describe the generation of proposed theory and the consensus recommendations developed through a multi-institutional focus group, developed using constructivist grounded theory and a modified nominal group technique. Eight academic hematologists, spanning classical and malignant hematology, enrolled and participated in 2 one-hour focus groups. All routinely worked with fellows and half had formally instructed trainees on PBS interpretation. Focus group data were analyzed using mixed-methods techniques. Tenets of emerging theory were identified through inductive coding. Consensus recommendations (CR) were generated. Participants reviewed CR in an iterative fashion until consensus was reached. Strong consensus was reached on multiple aspects of PBS education. All agreed that trainees should learn PBS review through a systematic approach. Group discussion focused on disorders of red and white blood cells. The diagnoses of acute leukemia and thrombotic microangiopathies were most commonly discussed, with specific emphasis on disorders in which prompt recognition was required to avert significant patient morbidity. These CR offer external validity to future research and curricular development for both PBS review and other visuospatial tasks in medical education.
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.