ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2024
Analytical Performance Evaluation of a Digital Real-Time PCR for Quantifying Major BCR::ABL1 Transcripts.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical performance evaluation and method comparison of the 1copy BCR::ABL1 qPCR assay for monitoring chronic myeloid leukemia.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate quantification of the BCR::ABL1 transcripts is essential for measurable residual disease (MRD) monitoring in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) after tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. This study evaluated the newly developed digital real-time PCR method, Dr. PCR, as an alternative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) for MRD detection.
methodsThe performance of Dr. PCR was assessed using reference and clinical materials. Precision, linearity, and correlation with qRT-PCR were evaluated. MRD levels detected by Dr. PCR were compared with qRT-PCR, and practical advantages were investigated.
resultsDr. PCR detected MRD up to 0.0032%
conclusionOur study provides a body of evidence supporting the clinical application of Dr. PCR as a rapid and efficient method for assessing MRD in patients with CML under the current treatment regimen.
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.