Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38145891›Full record

ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2024

Current Status of Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping of Hematolymphoid Neoplasms in Korea.

Mikyoung Park, Jihyang Lim, Ari Ahn, Eun-Jee Oh, Jaewoo Song, Kyeong-Hee Kim, Jin-Yeong Han, Hyun-Woo Choi, Joo-Heon Park, Kyung-Hwa Shin and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

16 authors.

Mikyoung ParkDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4815-6958
Jihyang LimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1459-8843
Ari AhnDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3408-767X
Eun-Jee OhDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5870-915X
Jaewoo SongDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1877-5731
Kyeong-Hee KimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Dong-A University Hospital, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Busan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6694-4296
Jin-Yeong HanDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Dong-A University Hospital, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Busan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0280-2739
Hyun-Woo ChoiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9438-1603
Joo-Heon ParkDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6842-0234
Kyung-Hwa ShinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8454-4448
Hyerim KimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5061-9253
Miyoung KimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8903-5044
Sang-Hyun HwangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3201-5728
Hyun-Young KimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-7096
Duck ChoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-3282
Eun-Suk KangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6386-6520

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of hematolymphoid neoplasms (FCI-HLN) is essential for diagnosis, classification, and minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring. FCI-HLN is typically performed using in-house protocols, raising the need for standardization. Therefore, we surveyed the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea to obtain fundamental data for quality improvement and standardization. Methods: Eight university hospitals actively conducting FCI-HLN participated in our survey. We analyzed responses to a questionnaire that included inquiries regarding test items, reagent antibodies (RAs), fluorophores, sample amounts (SAs), reagent antibody amounts (RAAs), acquisition cell number (ACN), isotype control (IC) usage, positive/negative criteria, and reporting. Results: Most hospitals used acute HLN, chronic HLN, plasma cell neoplasm (PCN), and MRD panels. The numbers of RAs were heterogeneous, with a maximum of 32, 26, 12, 14, and 10 antibodies used for acute HLN, chronic HLN, PCN, ALL-MRD, and multiple myeloma-MRD, respectively. The number of fluorophores ranged from 4 to 10. RAs, SAs, RAAs, and ACN were diverse. Most hospitals used a positive criterion of 20%, whereas one used 10% for acute and chronic HLN panels. Five hospitals used ICs for the negative criterion. Positive/negative assignments, percentages, and general opinions were commonly reported. In MRD reporting, the limit of detection and lower limit of quantification were included. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive study on the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea, confirming the high heterogeneity and complexity of FCI-HLN practices. Standardization of FCI-HLN is urgently needed. The findings provide a reference for establishing standard FCI-HLN guidelines.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAntibodiesFlow CytometryHumansImmunophenotypingRepublic of KoreaAntibodiesFlow cytometryHematolymphoid neoplasmImmunophenotypingMinimal residual diseasePlasma cell neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID38145891
PMCPMC10813832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.