Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2024
Deciphering cytopenias in internal medicine: a single-center observational study.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cytopenia is a common finding in patients admitted to internal medicine wards and the clinical workup may be long and time-consuming. In this single-center observational study, we analyzed a series of 151 inpatients who received hematologist referral due to cytopenia observed during hospital admission. Patients were mainly elderly (median 71 years, 15-96) and 87% had at least one comorbidity. Anemia was the most common cytopenia (91%), followed by thrombocytopenia (51%), and neutropenia (22%); 73 (48%) patients had a bicytopenia and 5 (3%) pancytopenia. Cytopenias were mainly severe, 66% of cases required RBC transfusions, and 21% platelet pools. During a median hospital stay of 15 days (1-166), 53 subjects (35%) received a hematologic discharge diagnosis, whilst the two-thirds had secondary cytopenia mainly due to associated comorbidities. Only about 34% of 2,728 diagnostic tests performed (including laboratory, imaging, and histology) clearly informed the discharge diagnosis in this heterogenous setting. Specifically, bone-marrow evaluation indicated in 46 (30%) patients, was diagnostic in 32 (69.6%). Eleven percent of patients died due to progression of the oncohematologic disease (29%), sepsis (24%), and solid tumor progression (24%). In conclusion, cytopenias in the internal medicine setting are mainly severe, more frequently secondary to associated comorbidities (2/3 of patients) and deserve proper workup before second/third-level tests (immune-hematological assays and CT scan or PET and bone-marrow evaluation, respectively).
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.