ArticleLeukemia2026
Improved inter-lab precision after CML international scale adoption: a 15-year history of BCR::ABL1 proficiency testing.
Article in Leukemia, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precise inter-laboratory quantitation of BCR::ABL1 RNA is critical for effective chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) disease management. Although standardized reporting on the International Scale (IS) was specifically developed to improve inter-laboratory reproducibility in BCR::ABL1 quantitation, the clinical impact of this reporting system has not been comprehensively assessed. We analyzed 15 years of BCR::ABL1 results (2009-2023) reported by over 200 clinical laboratories (6 annual samples; >5500 results) in a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing program. Inter-laboratory precision was evaluated by standard deviations (SD) for high, intermediate, and low-transcript samples. Early rapid IS adoption over 7 years (8% of labs in 2009; 86% by 2015) was correlated with a progressive decrease in inter-lab SDs of reported BCR::ABL1 results (high-sample r = -0.73, p = 0.004; intermediate-sample r = -0.71, p = 0.022; low-sample r = -0.84, p = 0.002). IS implementation exceeded 99% by 2019, as inter-lab SD's reached their nadir value (~0.2). No other assessed variable correlated with time-dependent improvement in inter-lab reproducibility, including reference gene selection (ABL1 versus others), RQ-PCR reagent selection, assay type (FDA-approved, commercial, or laboratory-developed), or practice setting. IS-based reporting is thus likely the principal driver of enhanced inter-laboratory precision in BCR::ABL1 quantitation, validating the real-world clinical relevance of adopting robust standardization in clinical molecular diagnostics.
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.