Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29098516›Full record

ReviewIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2017

Best practices for cryopreserving, thawing, recovering, and assessing cells.

John M Baust, Lia H Campbell, John W Harbell

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cryopreservation of biological materials: applications and economic perspectives.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Proof-of-Concept for a Continuous-Temperature Circulating Water Bath in Frostbite Limb Rewarming.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

John M BaustCPSI Biotech, CPSI Biotech, 2 Court St, Owego, NY, 13850, USA. jmbaust@cpsibiotech.com.
Lia H CampbellTissue Testing Technologies, LLC, North Charleston, SC, 29406, USA.
John W HarbellJHarbell Consulting, LLC, 16334 Sunset Valley Drive, Dallas, TX, 75248, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Long-term storage of cell stocks insures that cells are available for use whenever needed. Cryopreservation of cells is the method of choice for preservation of important or rare cell stocks. There are several factors to consider when establishing a protocol for freezing, thawing, and recovery of cells after storage. These parameters may include cell concentration, cryoprotectant choice and concentration, and thawing rate among others. Further, the assessment of cell viability and/or function prior to and following cryopreservation is imperative in order to accurately determine downstream utility as well for optimizing the cryopreservation process. This chapter is designed to provide guidance and insight into developing robust and successful protocols for preserving cells that will preserve cell stocks and provide optimal cell yield and viability.

Indexed as

Cryoprotective AgentsAnimalsCell MembraneCell SurvivalCryopreservationDimethyl SulfoxideEnzymesGenomicsHumansProteomicsCryoprotective AgentsDimethyl SulfoxideEnzymesApoptosisCell functionCryopreservationCryopreservation induced delayed onset cell deathCryoprotectantFreezingNecrosisSerumThawingViability assessment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.