ReviewEuropean journal of haematology2026
Redefining Hematology Referral Thresholds for Eosinophilia.
Review in European journal of haematology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEosinophilia is a common laboratory finding that frequently prompts referral for hematologic evaluation, yet the clinical utility of these consultations remains poorly characterized. This study aims to refine stratification for eosinophilia and characterize the spectrum of associated diagnoses.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of patients referred to hematology at the Oregon Health & Science University between 2015 and 2025 with confirmed eosinophilia based on an absolute eosinophil count (AEC) ≥ 0.5 × 10
resultsA total of 142 patients were evaluated for eosinophilia during the study period. The etiology of eosinophilia was deemed idiopathic in 44.8% (n = 64) of patients. Hypereosinophilic syndrome was diagnosed in 20.3% of patients (n = 29) and analyzed as a clinical syndrome, with most cases classified as HES not otherwise specified. The identifiable secondary causes of eosinophilia included asthma (9.8%), parasitic infection (7.7%), autoimmune disease (4.9%), and drug reactions (4.9%). Eosinophilia-specific therapies were administered in 22.5% (n = 32) of patients. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated that peak AEC was a strong predictor of clinically meaningful eosinophilia, defined as a diagnosis of HES or need for eosinophilia-specific treatment, with an area under the curve of 0.83. An AEC threshold of 1.5 × 10
conclusionsThese findings support considering a threshold of 1.5 × 10
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.