ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2016
Comparison of capillary and venous blood in the analysis of concentration and function of leucocyte sub-populations.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2016. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise-induced amplification of mitogen-stimulated oxidative burst in whole blood is strongly influenced by neutrophil counts during and following exercise.Physiological reports · 2021Trial
- Acute response of biomarkers in plasma from capillary blood after a strenuous endurance exercise bout.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Article
- Enhancing capillary blood collection: The influence of nicotinic acid and nonivamide.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCompare capillary and venous blood in the analysis of concentration and function of leucocyte sub-populations. This study hypothesised that capillary samples may be used in a site-specific manner as an alternative source of blood samples for assays of leucocyte concentration and neutrophilic phagocytic function and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, allowing acquisition of multiple samples to better monitor transient but significant post-exercise immune modulation.
methodsResting blood samples were simultaneously obtained from vein, finger and earlobe of healthy subjects (n = 10, age: 25.1 ± 3.1 years). Leucocyte concentrations were measured using a five-part differential haematological analyser. Leucocyte sub-populations (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD19, CD56, CD14) and granulocytic functional-related (CD11b, CD18, CD16b, CD66b) surface antigen markers, neutrophil phagocytosis (FITC-labelled Escherichia coli) and stimulated ROS production (DHR) were quantified utilizing flow cytometry. A MANOVA (α < 0.05 significance) analysed the effects of the different sampling sites in the concentrations of leucocyte populations, their surface antigen expression and granulocytic functions.
resultsLeucocyte concentration and neutrophilic ROS production yielded non-significant differences between sampling sites. Expression of granulocytic surface antigens was increased in both capillary sites compared to venous site (p = 0.008), particularly for adhesion markers CD11b/CD18. The percentage of neutrophils performing phagocytosis was higher in venous samples compared to finger (p = 0.025). Increased number of E. coli ingested was observed in venous sample compared to finger (p = 0.001) and to earlobe (p = 0.006).
conclusionWhilst attention must be paid for varying neutrophilic surface antigen expression and further studies are needed to establish appropriate reference ranges, this study supports the use of capillary blood samples in a site-specific manner to enhance sampling capabilities field-based research.
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.