ArticleCytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry2011
Methodological comparison of two anti-ZAP-70 antibodies.
Article in Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modulatory activity of adenosine on the immune response in cord and adult blood.Pediatric research · 2021Article
- Quantitative detection of zeta-chain-associated protein 70 expression in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Leukemia & lymphoma · 2013Article
- Combined normal donor and CLL: Single tube ZAP-70 analysis.Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundZAP-70 expression is a stage independent prognostic marker in CLL. However, interlaboratory variation is large, and there is neither a consensus nor a regulatory approved methodology.
methodsTwo anti-ZAP70 clones (1E7.2 and SBZAP) were compared in 45 untreated CLL patients. Nine different methods for ZAP-70 expression analysis were evaluated: M1, isotype control to determine negative; M2, internal residual T-cell to determine positive; M3, normal donor (ND) T-cell to determine positive; M4, internal T-cell/clone ratio; M5, ND residual T-cell/clone ratio; M6, clone/normal remaining B-cell ratio; M7, clone/ND B- cell ratio; M8, CLL-Z score; M9, modified CLL-Z score. A scoring system was designed integrating both 1E7.2 and SBZAP clones to assign ZAP-70 expression.
resultsThe correlation coefficients for the four selected highest statistically significant methods were as follows (M1 = 0.71, M3 = 0.72, M7 = 0.67, and M9 = 0.64). These four methods were used to generate a combined score. The two reagents showed agreement using the designed scoring system for 37/45 samples (82%), and 8/45 (18%) showed equivocal result with one of the two clones. Seven of the eight equivocal samples were resolved using the scoring system.
conclusionsFour of the nine methods of analysis were compared for each reagent. The use of two independent ZAP-70 reagents increases analytical certitude and the scoring method aids in the resolution of equivocal results. The combined use of two reagents, four methods of analysis, and a scoring method allowed for assignment of ZAP-70 expression in 44/45 samples (98%) tested and improved performance of this important prognostic assay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.