ReviewAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2024
Advances in estimating plasma cells in bone marrow: A comprehensive method review.
Review in African journal of laboratory medicine, 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.
- Comprehensive performance assessment of the BMIA-12 a system for bone marrow cell quantification in normal and hematological malignancy samples.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Diagnostic Performance of Flow Cytometry, Aspiration, and Biopsy with Immunohistochemistry in Plasma Cell Neoplasms.International journal of hematology-oncology and stem cell research · 2025Article
- A Novel Strategy for Assessing Bone Marrow Plasma Cell Percentage: Development and Internal Validation of a Surrogate Calculation Approach.Advances in hematology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quantitation of plasma cells in bone marrow (BM) is crucial for diagnosing and classifying plasma cell neoplasms. Various methods, including Romanowsky-stained BM aspirates (BMA), immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, and radiological imaging, have been explored. However, challenges such as patchy infiltration and sample haemodilution can impact the reliability of BM plasma cell percentage estimates. Bone marrow plasma cell percentage varies across methods, with immunohistochemically stained biopsies consistently yielding higher values than Romanowsky-stained BMA or flow cytometry alone. CD138 or MUM1 immunohistochemistry and artificial intelligence image analysis on whole-slide images are emerging as promising tools for accurate plasma cell identification and quantification. Radiological imaging, particularly with advanced technologies like dual-energy computed tomography and radiomics, shows potential for multiple myeloma diagnosis, although standardisation remains a challenge. Molecular techniques, such as allele-specific oligonucleotide quantitative polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing, offer insights into clonality and measurable residual disease. While no consensus exists on a gold standard method for BM plasma cell quantitation, CD138-stained biopsies are favoured for accurate estimation and play a pivotal role in diagnosing and assessing multiple myeloma treatment responses. Combining multiple methods, such as BMA, BM biopsy, and flow cytometry, enhances accuracy of diagnosis and classification of plasma cell neoplasms. The quest for a gold standard requires ongoing research and collaboration to refine existing methods. Furthermore, the rise of digital pathology is anticipated to reshape laboratory medicine and the role of pathologists in the digital era. What this study adds: This article adds a comprehensive review and comparison of different methods for plasma cell estimation in the bone marrow, highlighting their strengths and limitations. The goal is to contribute valuable insights that can guide the selection of optimal techniques for accurate plasma cell estimation.
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.