Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40563694›Full record

ReviewCancers2025

An Update on Flow Cytometry Analysis of Hematological Malignancies: Focus on Standardization.

Eda Holl, Michael Kapinsky, Anis Larbi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eda HollBeckman Coulter Life Sciences, Miami, FL 33196, USA.
Michael KapinskyBeckman Coulter Life Sciences, Miami, FL 33196, USA.
Anis LarbiBeckman Coulter Life Sciences, Miami, FL 33196, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flow cytometry use has significantly increased in clinical laboratories and has significantly helped improve the diagnosis of leukemias, lymphomas, and follow-up of minimal residual disease. Mastering this technique enables the performance of multiparametric single-cell analysis and increases the odds of identifying abnormal populations. As in many fields, there is a need to improve the quality of the data generated for accuracy, reproducibility, and trueness. The implementation of solutions reducing variability is achievable and needed, as the flow cytometry workflow involves many manual steps and items susceptible to operator bias and human error. Standardization of flow cytometry assays is sought and already implemented in many clinical hematology laboratories. However, the clinical community would highly benefit from further efforts in that direction to increase the comparability of findings across laboratories. This review covers the strengths and weaknesses of flow cytometry and focuses on the standardization approaches developed, including recent advances in the field.

Indexed as

flow cytometryleukemialymphomaminimal residual diseasestandardizationvalidated antibody panels

Identifiers

PMID40563694
PMCPMC12190783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.