Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29662552›Full record

ArticleJournal of circulating biomarkers

Strategies for enumeration of circulating microvesicles on a conventional flow cytometer: Counting beads and scatter parameters.

Mohammad J Alkhatatbeh, Anoop K Enjeti, Sara Baqar, Elif I Ekinci, Dorothy Liu, Rick F Thorne, Lisa F Lincz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of circulating biomarkers. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Circulating Exosomes and Ambient Air Pollution Exposure in COPD.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

7 authors.

Mohammad J AlkhatatbehDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Anoop K EnjetiHaematology Unit, Calvary Mater Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Sara BaqarDepartment of Endocrinology, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia.
Elif I EkinciDepartment of Endocrinology, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia.
Dorothy LiuDepartment of Endocrinology, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia.
Rick F ThorneDepartment of Endocrinology, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia.
Lisa F LinczHaematology Unit, Calvary Mater Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1612-2382

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enumeration of circulating microvesicles (MVs) by conventional flow cytometry is accomplished by the addition of a known amount of counting beads and calculated from the formula: MV/μl = (MV count/bead count) × final bead concentration. We sought to optimize each variable in the equation by determining the best parameters for detecting 'MV count' and examining the effects of different bead preparations and concentrations on the final calculation. Three commercially available bead preparations (TruCount, Flow-Count and CountBright) were tested, and MV detection on a BD FACSCanto was optimized for gating by either forward scatter (FSC) or side scatter (SSC); the results were compared by calculating different subsets of MV on a series of 74 typical patient plasma samples. The relationship between the number of beads added to each test and the number of beads counted by flow cytometry remained linear over a wide range of bead concentrations (

Indexed as

absolute countingextracellular vesiclesFlow cytometrymicroparticlesmicrovesiclescattersubmicron particles

Identifiers

PMID29662552
PMCPMC5894907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.