Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21080166›Full record

ArticleCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2011

Minimal information about T cell assays: the process of reaching the community of T cell immunologists in cancer and beyond.

C M Britten, S Janetzki, S H van der Burg, C Huber, M Kalos, H I Levitsky, H T Maecker, C J M Melief, J O'Donnell-Tormey, K Odunsi and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in placenta and/or cord blood might result in Th2 polarization.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.

C M BrittenIII. Medical Department, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany. cebritten@web.de
S Janetzki
S H van der Burg
C Huber
M Kalos
H I Levitsky
H T Maecker
C J M Melief
J O'Donnell-Tormey
K Odunsi
L J Old
G Pawelec
B O Roep
P Romero
A Hoos
M M Davis
Leiden University Medical Center · NLStanford University · USBristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USCancer Research Institute · USJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEJohns Hopkins University · USLudwig Cancer Research · CHLudwig Cancer Research · USRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many assays to evaluate the nature, breadth, and quality of antigen-specific T cell responses are currently applied in human medicine. In most cases, assay-related protocols are developed on an individual laboratory basis, resulting in a large number of different protocols being applied worldwide. Together with the inherent complexity of cellular assays, this leads to unnecessary limitations in the ability to compare results generated across institutions. Over the past few years a number of critical assay parameters have been identified which influence test performance irrespective of protocol, material, and reagents used. Describing these critical factors as an integral part of any published report will both facilitate the comparison of data generated across institutions and lead to improvements in the assays themselves. To this end, the Minimal Information About T Cell Assays (MIATA) project was initiated. The objective of MIATA is to achieve a broad consensus on which T cell assay parameters should be reported in scientific publications and to propose a mechanism for reporting these in a systematic manner. To add maximum value for the scientific community, a step-wise, open, and field-spanning approach has been taken to achieve technical precision, user-friendliness, adequate incorporation of concerns, and high acceptance among peers. Here, we describe the past, present, and future perspectives of the MIATA project. We suggest that the approach taken can be generically applied to projects in which a broad consensus has to be reached among scientists working in fragmented fields, such as immunology. An additional objective of this undertaking is to engage the broader scientific community to comment on MIATA and to become an active participant in the project.

Indexed as

ConsensusAllergy and ImmunologyHumansImmunologic TechniquesMonitoring, PhysiologicNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicProgram DevelopmentResearch DesignT-Lymphocytes

Identifiers

PMID21080166
PMCPMC3029829
OpenAlexW2159443496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.