SynthesisPloS one2026
Diagnostic accuracy of automated hematology analyzer abnormal flags for detecting hematological malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHematological malignancies including leukemia, lymphoma, and myelodysplastic syndromes, are characterized by clonal proliferation of abnormal blood or bone marrow cells. Early and accurate detection is essential for improving treatment outcomes and survival. Automated hematology analyzers generate abnormal flags that may indicate underlying hematologic malignancies; however, their overall diagnostic accuracy has not been comprehensively evaluated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of abnormal flags for detecting hematological malignancies.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant diagnostic accuracy studies. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2(QUADAS-2) tool. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model in Stata version 17.0. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore potential sources of variability.
resultsTwenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of abnormal hematology analyzer flags for detecting hematological malignancies were 91% (95% CI: 87%-94%) and 89% (95% CI: 84%-92%), respectively, indicating good diagnostic accuracy. Significant heterogeneity was observed across studies (I2 > 50%). Meta-regression analysis identified the type of abnormal flag as a significant source of heterogeneity in sensitivity (p < 0.001), whereas both the type of abnormal flag and the analyzer platform significantly influenced specificity.
conclusionAutomated hematology analyzer abnormal flags showed promising diagnostic performance. However, substantial heterogeneity and differences in analyzer platforms, flag types, and reference standards reduce the certainty and generalizability of pooled estimates. Nevertheless, these findings support the use of abnormal hematology analyzer flags as an effective initial screening tool in routine laboratory practice, particularly in resource-limited settings where rapid and cost-effective diagnostic support is essential. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42024601908).
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.