ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical sciences2022
An Interlaboratory Comparison on the Characterization of a Sub-micrometer Polydisperse Particle Dispersion.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determination of particle size and number concentrations in gold nanoparticle mixtures: an inter-method study using four analytical techniques (DLS, PTA, SEM and spICP-MS).Nanoscale advances · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Enabled Image Comparability Assessment for Flow Imaging Microscopy Across Platforms.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Surface Wipe Sampling of Hazardous Medicinal Products: A European Interlaboratory Comparison Study.Drug testing and analysis · 2025Article
- Glass Silicone Oil Free Pre-filled Syringe as Primary Container in Autoinjector.Pharmaceutical research · 2024Article
- Number Concentration Measurements of Polystyrene Submicrometer Particles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The measurement of polydisperse protein aggregates and particles in biotherapeutics remains a challenge, especially for particles with diameters of ≈ 1 µm and below (sub-micrometer). This paper describes an interlaboratory comparison with the goal of assessing the measurement variability for the characterization of a sub-micrometer polydisperse particle dispersion composed of five sub-populations of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and silica beads. The study included 20 participating laboratories from industry, academia, and government, and a variety of state-of-the-art particle-counting instruments. The received datasets were organized by instrument class to enable comparison of intralaboratory and interlaboratory performance. The main findings included high variability between datasets from different laboratories, with coefficients of variation from 13 % to 189 %. Intralaboratory variability was, on average, 37 % of the interlaboratory variability for an instrument class and particle sub-population. Drop-offs at either end of the size range and poor agreement on maximum counts of particle sub-populations were noted. The mean distributions from an instrument class, however, showed the size-coverage range for that class. The study shows that a polydisperse sample can be used to assess performance capabilities of an instrument set-up (including hardware, software, and user settings) and provides guidance for the development of polydisperse reference materials.
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.