ArticleThe Review of scientific instruments2013
Simplified confocal microscope for counting particles at low concentrations.
Article in The Review of scientific instruments, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-cell pathogen diagnostics for combating antibiotic resistance.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2023Article
- Bacterial Infection Diagnosis and Antibiotic Prescription in 3 h as an Answer to Antibiotic Resistance: The Case of Urinary Tract Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Rapid Detection of β-Lactamase-Producing Bacteria Using the Integrated Comprehensive Droplet Digital Detection (IC 3D) System.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Rapid isolation of rare targets from large fluid volumes.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- A rapid, point-of-care antibiotic susceptibility test for urinary tract infections.Journal of medical microbiology · 2020Article
- Complementary Assessment of Commercial Photoluminescent Pigments Printed on Cotton Fabric.Polymers · 2019Article
- Fluorescence lifetime detection with particle counting devices.Biomedical optics express · 2019Article
- Back to the Future: Fluorescence Correlation Spectroscopy Moves Back in the Cuvette.Biophysical journal · 2018Article
- Emerging Technologies for Molecular Diagnosis of Sepsis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2018Review
- Targeted Treatment for Bacterial Infections: Prospects for Pathogen-Specific Antibiotics Coupled with Rapid Diagnostics.Tetrahedron · 2016Article
- Digital quantification of miRNA directly in plasma using integrated comprehensive droplet digital detection.Lab on a chip · 2015Article
- Rapid detection of single bacteria in unprocessed blood using Integrated Comprehensive Droplet Digital Detection.Nature communications · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We describe a compact scanning confocal fluorescence microscope capable of detecting particles concentrations less than 100 particles∕ml in ~15 min. The system mechanically moves a cuvette containing ~3 ml of sample. A relatively large confocal volume is observed within the cuvette using a 1 mm pinhole in front of a detection PMT. Due to the motion of the sample, particles traverse the confocal volume quickly, and analysis by pattern recognition qualifies spikes in the emission intensity data and counts them as events. We show linearity of detection as a function of concentration and also characterize statistical behavior of the instrument. We calculate a detection sensitivity of the system using 3 μm fluorescent microspheres to be 5 particles/ml. Furthermore, to demonstrate biological application, we performed a dilution series to quantify stained E. coli and yeast cells. We counted E. coli cells at a concentration as low as 30 cells∕ml in 10 min/sample.
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.