ArticleInternational journal of stem cells2010
The cord blood separation league table: a comparison of the major clinical grade harvesting techniques for cord blood stem cells.
Article in International journal of stem cells, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancements in Umbilical Cord Biobanking: A Comprehensive Review of Current Trends and Future Prospects.Stem cells and cloning : advances and applications · 2024Review
- Continuous, intrinsic magnetic depletion of erythrocytes from whole blood with a quadrupole magnet and annular flow channel; pilot scale study.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2018Article
- Cord blood processing by a novel filtration system.Cell proliferation · 2015Article
- Detecting primitive hematopoietic stem cells in total nucleated and mononuclear cell fractions from umbilical cord blood segments and units.Journal of translational medicine · 2015Article
- Human embryonic stem cells: derivation, maintenance and cryopreservation.International journal of stem cells · 2011Review
- The umbilical cord: a rich and ethical stem cell source to advance regenerative medicine.Cell proliferation · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWell over 1 million Umbilical Cord Blood units (UCB) have been stored globally in the last 10 years. Already, over 20,000 transplants been performed using UCB for haematopoietic reconstitution alone, now this potential is joined by regenerative medicine. However, more needs to be known about processing of this stem cell source for it to reach full potential. METHODS AND
resultsIN THIS STUDY WE EVALUATED FIVE SEPARATION
methodsplasma depletion, density gradient, Hetastarch, a novel method known as PrepaCyte-CB and an automated centrifugal machine. Sepax gives the highest recovery of nucleated cells, an average of 78.8% (SD±21.36). When looking at CD34+ haematopoietic stem cells PrepaCyte-CB provided the greatest recovery at 74.47% (SD±8.89). For volume reduction density gradient was the most effective leaving 0.03×10(6) RBC/ml, 8 times more efficient than its nearest competitor PrepaCyte-CB (p<0.05). Finally PrepaCyte-CB processing left samples with the highest clonogenic potential after processing and more significantly after cryopreservation: 9.23 CFU/10(8) cells (SD±2.33), 1.5 fold more effective than its nearest rival Sepax (p<0.05).
conclusionsPrepaCyte-CB was the most flexible method; the only processing type unaffected by volume. Results indicate that processing choice is important depending on your final intended use.
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.