ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Improving the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Using Conventional and Molecular Techniques.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Humoral immune response to mRNA-based influenza vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of Saudi medicinePooled it
- RNA Regulatory Networks: Key Hubs in the Panorama of Cancer and Emerging Therapeutic Targets.MedComm · 2026Review
- Circulating miRNAs (135a-5p, 646 AND 1271-5P) in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Staging: Integrative Network and Functional Analysis.Journal of circulating biomarkersArticle
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
backgroundThe Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) represented a finding of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in most cases which formed from t (9; 22) (q34; q11) resulting in the Breakpoint cluster region-Abelson tyrosine-protein kinase1 (BCR-ABL1) fusion gene. Assuming CCE's inaccuracies in diagnosing CML and FISH's limitations with low BCR-ABL1 percentages, a Predicted-FISH (Pred-FISH) was developed. This model predicts treatment response during follow-up by integrating qRT-PCR results, White Blood Cell (WBC) counts, and Cytogenetic Response data.
methodsQuantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Analysis (qRT-PCR), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and Conventional Cytogenetic Examination (CCE or Karyotyping) have been used in the detection and follow-up of CML patients. The study included 110 individuals, divided into three groups: 31.82% (35 individuals) were newly diagnosed CML patients, another 22.73% (25 individuals) were healthy control samples, and the remaining 45.45% (50 individuals) were previously diagnosed CML patients.
resultsInclude BCR-ABL1 fusion gene levels detected by qRT-PCR, Ph chromosome presence t (9; 22) (q34; q11) observed by CCE, and WBC counts. The FISH test, used to confirm disease in new patients before treatment, was compared to CCE results due to its insensitivity in certain conditions. Data from CCE, FISH, qRT-PCR, and WBC for newly diagnosed patients provided a standard for evaluating the Predicted-FISH.
conclusionThe FISH technique excels in disease detection with over 98% accuracy and high sensitivity. QRT-PCR is effective for monitoring CML and BCR-ABL1 gene levels, indicating MMR and DMR. CCE, while useful for posttreatment monitoring, is less accurate in measuring treatment response over time.
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.