Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34322106›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2021

Improving and Comparing Probiotic Plate Count Methods by Analytical Procedure Lifecycle Management.

M L Jane Weitzel, Christina S Vegge, Marco Pane, Virginia S Goldman, Binu Koshy, Cisse Hedegaard Porsby, Pierre Burguière, Jean L Schoeni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  11. 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

8 authors.

M L Jane WeitzelExpert Committee on Measurement and Data Quality, US Pharmacopeial Convention, Rockville, MD, United States.
Christina S VeggeAnalytical Development, Bacthera, Hørsholm, Denmark.
Marco PaneProbiotical Research Srl, Novara, Italy.
Virginia S GoldmanScience Division, Department of Dietary Supplements and Herbal Medicines, US Pharmacopeial Convention, Rockville, MD, United States.
Binu KoshyScience Division, Department of Dietary Supplements and Herbal Medicines, US Pharmacopeial Convention, Rockville, MD, United States.
Cisse Hedegaard PorsbyAnalytical Development, Bacthera, Hørsholm, Denmark.
Pierre BurguièreAdvanced Microbial Analytics (AMA) Research Solutions, Lyon, France.
Jean L SchoeniEurofins Microbiology Laboratory, Madison, WI, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probiotics are live microorganisms that confer a health benefit to the host when administered in adequate amounts. This definition links probiotic efficacy to microbial viability. The current gold standard assay for probiotic potency is enumeration using classical microbiology plating-based procedures, yielding results in colony-forming units (CFU). One drawback to plating-based procedures is high variability due to intrinsic and extrinsic uncertainties. These uncertainties make comparison between analytical procedures challenging. In this article, we provide tools to reduce measurement uncertainty and strengthen the reliability of probiotic enumerations by using analytical procedure lifecycle management (APLM). APLM is a tool that uses a step-by-step process to define procedure performance based on the concept that the reportable value (final CFU result) must be fit for its intended use. Once the procedure performance is defined, the information gathered through APLM can be used to evaluate and compare procedures. Here, we discuss the theory behind applying APLM and give practical information about its application to CFU enumeration procedures for probiotics using a simulated example and data set. Data collected in a manufacturer's development laboratory is included to support application of the concept. Implementation of APLM can lead to reduced variability by identifying specific factors (e.g., the dilution step) with significant impact on the variability and providing insights to procedural modifications that lead to process improvement. Understanding and control of the analytical procedure is improved by using these tools. The probiotics industry can confidently apply the information and analytical results generated to make decisions about processes and formulation, including overage requirements. One benefit of this approach is that companies can reduce overage costs. More reliable procedures for viable cell count determinations will improve the quality evaluation of probiotic products, and hence manufacturing procedures, while ensuring that products deliver clinically demonstrated beneficial doses.

Indexed as

analytical procedure lifecycle managementanalytical target profilecolony-forming unitsenumerationmethods comparisonprobioticstarget measurement uncertaintyUSP

Identifiers

PMID34322106
PMCPMC8312684

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.