ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2024
Flow cytometry in the differential diagnosis of myelodysplastic neoplasm with low blasts and cytopenia of other causes.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Validation and Modeling of Flow Cytometric CD36 Coefficient of Variation Analysis in the Diagnosis of Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic SyndromeTurkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology · 2026Article
- A potential predictive model based on machine learning and CPD parameters in elderly patients with aplastic anemia and myelodysplastic neoplasms.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are characterized by cytopenia, morphologic dysplasia, and genetic abnormalities. Multiparameter flow cytometry (FCM) is recommended in the diagnostic work-up of suspected MDS, but alone is not sufficient to establish the diagnosis. Our aim was to investigate the diagnostic power of FCM in a heterogeneous population of patients with cytopenia, excluding cases with increased blast count. Methods: We analyzed bone marrow samples from 179 patients with cytopenia (58 MDS, 121 non-MDS) using a standardized 8-color FCM method. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of several simple diagnostic approaches, including Ogata score, extended Ogata score, the WHO and ELN iMDSFlow recommended "3 aberrations in two cell compartments method," and the combination of the Ogata score and "3 aberrations in two cell compartments method." The patients were followed until the diagnosis was confirmed, with a median follow-up of 2 months (range 0.2-27). Results: The combination of Ogata score and "3 aberrations in two cell compartments method" achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy (78%) with sensitivity and specificity 61% and 86%, respectively. When using only the "3 aberrations in two cell compartments method," the accuracy was 77% with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 79%. The most frequently observed etiologies among the false positive cases were substrate deficiencies, inflammation/infection, or toxic effects. MDS can be excluded in all these cases after a thorough clinical evaluation and a relatively short follow-up. Conclusion: FCM remains an important but supplementary part in an integrated diagnostic process of MDS with low blasts. The combination of the Ogata score and the "3 aberrations in two cell compartments method" slightly improves accuracy compared to the detection of "3 aberrations in two cell compartments method" alone.
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.