Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32665668›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Standardization procedure for flow cytometry data harmonization in prospective multicenter studies.

Lucas Le Lann, Pierre-Emmanuel Jouve, Marta Alarcón-Riquelme, Christophe Jamin, Jacques-Olivier Pers, PRECISESADS Flow Cytometry Study Group, PRECISESADS Clinical Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. International comparison of neutrophil surface markers after severe trauma is feasible using point of care flowcytometry - results from a pilot study.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

7 authors.

Lucas Le LannINSERM, UMR1227, CHRU Morvan, Lymphocytes B et Autoimmunité, Univ Brest, BP 824, 29609, Brest, France.
Pierre-Emmanuel JouveAltrabio SAS, Lyon, France.
Marta Alarcón-RiquelmeGENYO, Centre for Genomics and Oncological Research Pfizer, University of Granada, Andalusian Regional Government, PTS Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7632-4154
Christophe JaminINSERM, UMR1227, CHRU Morvan, Lymphocytes B et Autoimmunité, Univ Brest, BP 824, 29609, Brest, France. christophe.jamin@univ-brest.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9494-3223
Jacques-Olivier PersINSERM, UMR1227, CHRU Morvan, Lymphocytes B et Autoimmunité, Univ Brest, BP 824, 29609, Brest, France.
PRECISESADS Flow Cytometry Study Group
PRECISESADS Clinical Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most challenging objective for clinical cytometry in prospective multicenter immunomonitoring trials is to compare frequencies, absolute numbers of leukocyte populations and further the mean fluorescence intensities of cell markers, especially when the data are generated from different instruments. Here, we describe an innovative standardization workflow to compare all data to carry out any large-scale, prospective multicentric flow cytometry analysis whatever the duration, the number or type of instruments required for the realization of such projects.

Indexed as

BiomarkersLeukocytesReference StandardsFlow CytometryHumansProspective StudiesBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID32665668
PMCPMC7360585

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.