Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 454

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3

Dimopoulos, Meletios, Kyle, Robert, Fermand, Jean-Paul, Rajkumar, S. Vincent, San Miguel, Jesus, Chanan-Khan, Asher, Ludwig, Heinz, Joshua, Douglas, Mehta, Jayesh, Gertz, Morie, Avet-Loiseau, Hervé, Beksaç, Meral, Anderson, Kenneth C., Moreau, Philippe, Singhal, Seema, Goldschmidt, Hartmut, Boccadoro, Mario, Kumar, Shaji, Giralt, Sergio, Munshi, Nikhil C., Jagannath, Sundar, on behalf of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3·2011·Blood

Abstract

A panel of members of the 2009 International Myeloma Workshop developed guidelines for standard investigative workup of patients with suspected multiple myeloma. Both serum and urine should be assessed for monoclonal protein. Measurement of monoclonal protein both by densitometer tracing and/by nephelometric quantitation is recommended, and immunofixation is required for confirmation. The serum-free light chain assay is recommended in all newly diagnosed patients with plasma cell dyscrasias. Bone marrow aspiration and/or biopsy along with demonstration of clonality of plasma cells are necessary. Serum β2-microglobulin, albumin, and lactate dehydrogenase are necessary for prognostic purposes. Standard metaphase cytogenetics and fluorescent in situ hybridization for 17p, t(4;14), and t(14;16) are recommended. The skeletal survey remains the standard method for imaging screening, but magnetic resonance imaging frequently provides valuable diagnostic and prognostic information. Most of these tests are repeated during follow-up or at relapse.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1182/blood-2010-10-299529

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 454

Metadata

Authors
Dimopoulos, M., Kyle, R., Fermand, J.-P., Rajkumar, S. V., San Miguel, J., Chanan-Khan, A., Ludwig, H., Joshua, D., Mehta, J., Gertz, M., Avet-Loiseau, H., Beksaç, M., Anderson, K. C., Moreau, P., Singhal, S., Goldschmidt, H., Boccadoro, M., Kumar, S., Giralt, S., Munshi, N. C., Jagannath, S., & 3, O. B. O. T. I. M. W. C. P.
Venue
Blood
Published
2011-05-05
Volume
117
Issue
18
Pages
4701-4705
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2032640560
Cited by
454
References
26
FWCI
26.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2010-10-299529
The paper
Dimopoulos, M., Kyle, R., Fermand, J.-P., Rajkumar, S. V., San Miguel, J., Chanan-Khan, A., Ludwig, H., Joshua, D., Mehta, J., Gertz, M., Avet-Loiseau, H., Beksaç, M., Anderson, K. C., Moreau, P., Singhal, S., Goldschmidt, H., Boccadoro, M., Kumar, S., Giralt, S., . . . 3, O. B. O. T. I. M. W. C. P. (2011). Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-10-299529

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.