ArticleBioMed research international2014
Timing of peripheral blood stem cell yield: comparison of alternative methods with the classic method for CD34+ cell determination.
Article in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Harvest HPC Count Is an Effective Surrogate Marker for CD34+ Cell Count in Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant Setting.Translational oncology · 2020Article
- Assessment of haematopoietic progenitor cell counting with the SysmexBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2020Article
- Method comparison study of peripheral blood CD34+ count performed on an Abbott CELL-DYN Sapphire hematology analyzer versus flow cytometry reference procedure (modified ISHAGE).Advances in cell and gene therapy · 2018Article
- Algorithms utilizing peripheral blood hematopoietic progenitor cell counts in lieu of some CD34ISBT science series · 2016Article
- Correlation of various methods of hematopoietic progenitor cell estimation with standard flowcytometric CD34 enumeration.Asian journal of transfusion scienceArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), still represent a certain mystery in biology, have a unique property of dividing into equal cells and repopulating the hematopoietic tissue. This potential enables their use in transplantation treatments. The quality of the HSC grafts for transplantation is evaluated by flow cytometric determination of the CD34(+) cells, which enables optimal timing of the first apheresis and the acquisition of maximal yield of the peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). To identify a more efficient method for evaluating CD34(+) cells, we compared the following alternative methods with the reference method: hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) enumeration (using the Sysmex XE-2100 analyser), detection of CD133(+) cells, and quantification of aldehyde dehydrogenase activity in the PBSCs. 266 aphereses (84 patients) were evaluated. In the preapheretic blood, the new methods produced data that were in agreement with the reference method. The ROC curves have shown that for the first-day apheresis target, the optimal predictive cut-off value was 0.032 cells/mL for the HPC method (sensitivity 73.4%, specificity 69.3%). HPC method exhibited a definite practical superiority as compared to other methods tested. HPC enumeration could serve as a supplementary method for the optimal timing of the first apheresis; it is simple, rapid, and cheap.
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.