↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic Utility of Flow Cytometry in Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic Utility of Flow Cytometry in Myelodysplastic Syndromes
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmen Mariana Aanei, Tiphanie Picot, Emmanuelle Tavernier, Denis Guyotat, Lydia Campos Catafal

Abstract

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) are clonal disorders of hematopoiesis that exhibit heterogeneous clinical presentation and morphological findings, which complicates diagnosis, especially in early stages. Recently, refined definitions and standards in the diagnosis and treatment of MDS were proposed, but numerous questions remain. Multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) is a helpful tool for the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected MDS, and various scores using MFC data have been developed. However, none of these methods have achieved the sensitivity that is required for a reassuring diagnosis in the absence of morphological abnormalities. One reason may be that each score evaluates one or two lineages without offering a broad view of the dysplastic process. The combination of two scores (e.g., Ogata and Red Score) improved the sensitivity from 50-60 to 88%, but the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) must be improved. There are prominent differences between study groups when these scores are tested. Further research is needed to maximize the sensitivity of flow cytometric analysis in MDS. This review focuses on the application of flow cytometry for MDS diagnosis and discusses the advantages and limitations of different approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#6,609
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,572
of 367,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#27
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.