ReviewJournal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa2024
Comparison of the World Health Organisation and International Consensus Classification of haematolymphoid tumours.
Review in Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization has updated its classification of haematolymphoid tumours to the new 5th edition. The International Consensus Classification is another group that has developed a separate classification system with similar but conflicting approaches. This led to a debate among haematologists about which classification system is more appropriate for clinical use. This article examines and compares these contrasting and concurring classifications, and provides insight into the utility of each system. Methods: Journal articles pertaining to WHO-HAEM4R, WHO-HAEM5 and ICC were searched for using the MEDLINE database, from November 2022 to November 2023. Original research articles and reviews were selected to compile this review. Results: The classification systems share many similarities with minor name changes and subgrouping. There are few instances where diagnostic grouping differs between the classifications, which could have clinical implications regarding treatment and enrolment in clinical trials. Conclusion: There is universal agreement about the need for objective criteria for the classification of haematolymphoid tumours. As a result, there have been considerable strides in the classification with regard to morphologic, immunophenotypic, molecular and cytogenetic characterisation. It is reassuring to have a stepwise approach to diagnosis, allowing developing countries to make appropriate diagnoses. Contribution: Harmonisation is needed for a universal diagnostic system for the benefit of the patient. Both classification systems have merit and either could be adopted by individual institutions at present. The authors appeal for interim advocacy measures to assure access to the specific diagnostic investigations in poorly resourced societies, pending more permanent and sustainable access.
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.