ArticleAnnals of hematology1993
Reproducibility of the morphological diagnostic criteria for acute myeloid leukemia: the GIMEMA group experience.
Article in Annals of hematology, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ICSH Recommendations for Monocyte Cell Lineage Morphologic Identification, Nomenclature Harmonization, and Utilization as a Biomarker.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Review
- Outcome of acute myeloid leukaemia in Nigeria: clinician's perspective.Ecancermedicalscience · 2021Article
- De novo acute megakaryoblastic leukemia with p210 BCR/ABL and t(1;16) translocation but not t(9;22) Ph chromosome.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2011Article
- Hematological malignancies in chronic inflammatory bowel diseases: report of five cases and review of the literature.International journal of colorectal disease · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic reproducibility of the FAB morphological subtypes of acute leukemia is a basic step in the assessment of the clinical outcome in multicenter trials. Unusual cytologic variables and slightly different interpretations of the FAB morphological criteria have been the most significant factors affecting the overall diagnostic concordance rate among the various centers. An evaluation of the diagnostic concurrence between 35 institutions of the Italian Cooperative Study Group GIMEMA and two reviewers of the ad hoc morphological committee has been performed on 377 patients entering the AML 8A and AML 8B GIMEMA protocols. Overall concordance rate was 62.6%. The most significant differences were observed for M2 vs M4, M4 vs M5, M1 vs M2, and M2 vs M5 subtypes. In order to minimize the impact of some diagnostic deviations on the mean cytologic concordance rate, a distinction between "major" and "minor" discrepancies in the diagnostic procedures has been proposed. When the results of the single institutions were corrected by considering the "major" discrepancies only, a mean diagnostic agreement of 78.1% was reached.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8485204What 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.