ArticleHematology, transfusion and cell therapy
Retrospective comparison of two different cell separators for autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection: Single center experience.
Article in Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- A two-phase low-dose ACD-A strategy overcomes hypocalcemia during peripheral blood stem cell collection: a randomized controlled study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- [Comparison of the effectiveness and safety profile of centrifugal and membrane plasma separation in artificial liver therapy with a dual plasma molecular adsorption system].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAutologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation has become a standard treatment option for certain hematological malignancies. The collection of PBSCs for transplantation is a well-established process and the effectiveness can vary depending on the cell separator. We aimed to compare the effectivity of two devices, the Spectra Optia and the Amicus for autologous PBSC collection. We also evaluated the effect of the peripheral white blood cell (WBC) count on the CD34+ collection efficiency (CE2).
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 262 apheresis procedures performed in patients between 2015 and 2021 at the Apheresis Unit of our transplantation center. The PBSCs were collected by the Spectra Optia cell separator with continuous Mononuclear Collection (cMNC) (128 procedures) or the Amicus (MNC) (134 procedures). In addition to the apheresis parameters and product characteristics, we also evaluated the effect of the pre-apheresis peripheral WBC count on the CE2.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the CD34+ CE2 between the Spectra Optia and Amicus devices (median 65.06% and 68.24%, respectively, p = 0.070). In the Amicus group, the CE2 ratio was found to be statistically significantly higher in patients with a pre-apheresis peripheral WBC count of 15 × 10
conclusionWhile both devices collected autologous PBSC effectively and safely, the Amicus provided a higher rate of CE2 at low pre-apheresis WBC counts. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the CE2 in autologous PBSC collection devices based on pre-apheresis WBC counts.
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.