HRCGH is superior to conventional CGH as an adjunct to G-band karyotyping as it detects recurrent aberrations at a significantly higher rate than both these techniques.
High hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children is related to a good outcome. Because these patients may be stratified to a low-intensity treatment, we have investigated the sensitivity of flow cytometry (FCM), G-band karyotyping (GBK), and high-resolution comparative genomic hybridization (HR-CGH) in detecting high hyperdiploid leukemic clones. Twenty-six girls and 34 boys with acute lymphoblastic leukemia diagnosed in 1998 to 1999 were analyzed by FCM, GBK, and HR-CGH. The correlations between DNA indices obtained by FCM, GBK, and HR-CGH were significant (rs=0.61 to 0.77; P<0.001 for all comparisons). However, in 4 of 18 patients, high hyperdiploidy was overlooked by GBK or HR-CGH, and even when FCM was applied, 2 of 18 patients with high hyperdiploidy by GBK and/or HR-CGH were classified as nonhigh hyperdiploid. If high hyperdiploid subclones were included, FCM could detect all high hyperdiploid patients found by either GBK or HR-CGH, but would then in addition classify 15% to 20% of the remaining patients as high hyperdiploid. Thus, both GBK and HR-CGH overlook patients with high hyperdiploidy, and FCM only detects all high hyperdiploid patients if small high hyperdiploid clones are included. In addition, FCM detects patients with high hyperdiploid subclones, not detected by either GBK or HR-CGH, and the challenge remains to determine the prognosis of patients with such high hyperdiploid subclones.
BackgroundAssessment of laypersons’ Paediatric Basic Life Support (PBLS) skills is important to ensure acquisition of effective PBLS competencies. However limited evidence exists on which PBLS skills are essential for laypersons. The same challenges exist with respect to the assessment of foreign body airway obstruction management (FBAOM) skills. We aimed to establish international consensus on how to assess laypersons’ PBLS and FBAOM skills.MethodsA Delphi consensus survey was conducted. Out of a total of 84 invited experts, 28 agreed to participate. During the first Delphi round experts suggested items to assess laypersons’ PBLS and FBAOM skills.In the second round, the suggested items received comments from and were rated by 26 experts (93%) on a 5-point scale (1 = not relevant to 5 = essential). Revised items were anonymously presented in a third round for comments and 23 (82%) experts completed a re-rating. Items with a score above 3 by more than 80% of the experts in the third round were included in an assessment instrument.ResultsIn the first round, 19 and 15 items were identified to assess PBLS and FBAOM skills, respectively. The ratings and comments from the last two rounds resulted in nine and eight essential assessment items for PBLS and FBAOM skills, respectively. The PBLS items included: “Responsiveness”,” Call for help”, “Open airway”,” Check breathing”, “Rescue breaths”, “Compressions”, “Ventilations“, “Time factor” and “Use of AED”. The FBAOM items included: “Identify different stages of foreign body airway obstruction”, “Identify consciousness”, “Call for help”, “Back blows“, “Chest thrusts/abdominal thrusts according to age”, “Identify loss of consciousness and change to CPR”, “Assessment of breathing” and “Ventilation”.DiscussionFor assessment of laypersons some PBLS and FBAOM skills described in guidelines are more important than others. Four out of nine of PBLS skills focus on airway and breathing skills, supporting the major importance of these skills for laypersons’ resuscitation attempts.ConclusionsInternational consensus on how to assess laypersons’ paediatric basic life support and foreign body airway obstruction management skills was established. The assessment of these skills may help to determine when laypersons have acquired competencies.Trial registrationNot relevant.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-018-0474-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.