ArticlePloS one2024
Clinical evaluation of a fully electronic microfluidic white blood cell analyzer.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microfluidic Assays for CD4 T Lymphocyte Counting: A Review.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Electrode Droplet Microarray (eDMA): An Impedance Platform for Label-Free Parallel Monitoring of Cellular Drug Response in Nanoliter Droplets.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of CardiochekLipids in health and disease · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The White Blood Cell (WBC) count is one of the key parameters signaling the health of the immune system. Abnormal WBC counts often signal a systemic insult to the body such as an underlying infection or an adverse side effect to medication. Typically, the blood collected is sent to a central lab for testing, and results come back within hours, which is often inconvenient and may delay time-sensitive diagnosis or treatment. Here, we present the CytoTracker, a fully electronic, microfluidic based instant WBC analyzer with the potential to be used at point-of-care. The CytoTracker is a lightweight, portable, affordable platform capable of quantifying WBCs within minutes using only 50 μl of blood (approximately one drop of blood). In this study, we clinically evaluated the accuracy and performance of CytoTracker in measuring WBC and granulocyte counts. A total of 210 adult patients were recruited in the study. We validated the CytoTracker against a standard benchtop analyzer (Horiba Point of Care Hematology Analyzer, ABX Micros 60). Linear dynamic ranges of 2.5 k/μl- 35 k/μl and 0.6 k/μl- 26 k/μl were achieved for total WBC count and granulocyte count with correlation coefficients of 0.97 and 0.98. In addition, we verified CytoTracker's capability of identifying abnormal blood counts with above 90% sensitivity and specificity. The promising results of this clinical validation study demonstrate the potential for the use of the CytoTracker as a reliable and accurate point-of-care WBC analyzer.
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.