Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33847928›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2021

Quantification of Complement Proteins with Special Reference to C1q: Multiplex Versus ELISA Versus Rocket Immunoelectrophoresis Versus Nephelometry.

Kerstin Sandholm, Barbro Persson, Sliva Abdalla, Camilla Mohlin, Bo Nilsson, Kristina N Ekdahl

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kerstin SandholmCentre of Biomaterials Chemistry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
Barbro PerssonDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology (IGP), Rudbeck Laboratory C5:3, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sliva AbdallaDepartment of Clinical Immunology and Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Camilla MohlinCentre of Biomaterials Chemistry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
Bo NilssonDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology (IGP), Rudbeck Laboratory C5:3, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Kristina N EkdahlCentre of Biomaterials Chemistry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden. Kristina.Nilsson_Ekdahl@igp.uu.se.
Linnaeus University · SEUppsala University · SEUppsala University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate determination of complement component C1q is hampered by the fact that C1q is an immune complex binding protein. Consequently, immunochemical techniques which rely on immune complex formation in fluid phase such as nephelometry and turbidimetry tend to give results which differ from those obtained by, for example, ELISA and other solid phase-based assays. In this chapter, we discuss the pros and cons of different techniques for the quantification of C1q and present a comprehensive protocol for a newly developed magnetic bead-based sandwich immunoassay which has replaced nephelometry in our complement diagnostic laboratory at the University Hospital in Uppsala.

Indexed as

Blood Protein ElectrophoresisComplement C1qComplement System ProteinsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoelectrophoresisImmunomagnetic SeparationNephelometry and TurbidimetryComplement C1qComplement System ProteinsC1qCerebrospinal fluid (CSF)ELISAImmunoassaysMultiplexNephelometryPlasmaRocket immunoelectrophoresis (RIE)

Identifiers

PMID33847928
OpenAlexW3154207292

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.