ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2026
Analytical performance evaluation and method comparison of the 1copy BCR::ABL1 qPCR assay for monitoring chronic myeloid leukemia.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- One Target, Different Results: The Clinical Impact of Diagnostic Kit Choice inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Background: Accurate Methods: Precision, linearity, and detection capability (LoB, LoD, LoQ] were assessed according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. A method comparison study was performed using 74 clinical samples tested concurrently with the ipsogen BCR::ABL1 Mbcr IS-MMR Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and the QXDx BCR::ABL %IS droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Concordance was further evaluated at clinically critical molecular response thresholds (>10%, >1%, and ≤0.1% international scale [IS]). Results: The coefficients of variation at 14.1% IS and 0.233% IS were 14.4% and 15.6%, respectively. The assay was linear across a 5-log range (0.02-85% IS; R Conclusions: The 1copy BCR::ABL1 qPCR assay demonstrated reliable analytical performance and high concordance with established quantitative assays at clinically relevant molecular response thresholds, supporting its utility for routine monitoring of CML.
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.