Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26730574›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Pre-Analytical Parameters Affecting Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Measurement in Plasma: Identifying Confounders.

Johanna M Walz, Daniel Boehringer, Heidrun L Deissler, Lothar Faerber, Jens C Goepfert, Peter Heiduschka, Susannah M Kleeberger, Alexa Klettner, Tim U Krohne, Nicole Schneiderhan-Marra and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Exercise and Hippocampal Memory Systems.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Johanna M WalzEye Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Daniel BoehringerEye Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Heidrun L DeisslerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Lothar FaerberDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Jens C GoepfertNMI Natural and Medical Sciences Institute at the University of Tuebingen, Reutlingen, Germany.
Peter HeiduschkaDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Susannah M KleebergerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Alexa KlettnerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Kiel, University medical center, Kiel, Germany.
Tim U KrohneDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Nicole Schneiderhan-MarraNMI Natural and Medical Sciences Institute at the University of Tuebingen, Reutlingen, Germany.
Focke ZiemssenDepartment for Ophthalmology, Eberhard-Karl University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Andreas StahlEye Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DENatural and Medical Sciences Institute · DEUniversity of Bonn · DEKiel University · DENovartis (Germany) · DEUniversität Ulm · DEUniversity of Münster · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) is intensively investigated in various medical fields. However, comparing VEGF-A measurements is difficult because sample acquisition and pre-analytic procedures differ between studies. We therefore investigated which variables act as confounders of VEGF-A measurements.

methodsFollowing a standardized protocol, blood was taken at three clinical sites from six healthy participants (one male and one female participant at each center) twice one week apart. The following pre-analytical parameters were varied in order to analyze their impact on VEGF-A measurements: analyzing center, anticoagulant (EDTA vs. PECT / CTAD), cannula (butterfly vs. neonatal), type of centrifuge (swing-out vs. fixed-angle), time before and after centrifugation, filling level (completely filled vs. half-filled tubes) and analyzing method (ELISA vs. multiplex bead array). Additionally, intrapersonal variations over time and sex differences were explored. Statistical analysis was performed using a linear regression model.

resultsThe following parameters were identified as statistically significant independent confounders of VEGF-A measurements: analyzing center, anticoagulant, centrifuge, analyzing method and sex of the proband. The following parameters were no significant confounders in our data set: intrapersonal variation over one week, cannula, time before and after centrifugation and filling level of collection tubes.

conclusionVEGF-A measurement results can be affected significantly by the identified pre-analytical parameters. We recommend the use of CTAD anticoagulant, a standardized type of centrifuge and one central laboratory using the same analyzing method for all samples.

Indexed as

AdultBlood Specimen CollectionChemistry Techniques, AnalyticalEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleReagent Kits, DiagnosticReproducibility of ResultsSex FactorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AYoung AdultReagent Kits, DiagnosticVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVEGFA protein, human

Identifiers

PMID26730574
PMCPMC4711588
OpenAlexW2222356193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.