ArticleSmall methods2017
Monitoring Neutropenia for Cancer Patients at the Point of Care.
Article in Small methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microneedle Patch for In Situ Neutrophil Monitoring.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Hypogammaglobulinemia, late-onset neutropenia, and infections following rituximab.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2023Review
- Design, Development, and Performance Comparison of Wide Field Lensless and Lens-Based Optical Systems for Point-of-Care Biological Applications.Optics and lasers in engineering · 2021Article
- Adhesive bonding strategies to fabricate high-strength and transparent 3D printed microfluidic device.Biomicrofluidics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Neutrophils have a critical role in regulating the immune system. The immune system is compromised during chemotherapy, increasing infection risks and imposing a need for regular monitoring of neutrophil counts. Although commercial hematology analyzers are currently used in clinical practice for neutrophil counts, they are only available in clinics and hospitals, use large blood volumes, and are not available at the point of care (POC). Additionally, phlebotomy and blood processing require trained personnel, where patients are often admitted to hospitals when the infections are at late stage due to lack of frequent monitoring. Here, a reliable method is presented that selectively captures and quantifies white blood cells (WBCs) and neutrophils from a finger prick volume of whole blood by integrating microfluidics with high-resolution imaging algorithms. The platform is compact, portable, and easy to use. It captures and quantifies WBCs and neutrophils with high efficiency (>95%) and specificity (>95%) with an overall 4.2% bias compared to standard testing. The results from a small cohort of patients (
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.