ArticleAsian journal of transfusion science
Correlation of various methods of hematopoietic progenitor cell estimation with standard flowcytometric CD34 enumeration.
Article in Asian journal of transfusion science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEnumeration of hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) is vital to decide the time to initiate harvest (TTIH) and adequacy of harvest dose (AOHD). Standard of care used for HPC enumeration is flowcytometric CD34+ enumeration, but it is expensive, time-consuming and requires skilled staff to perform the test. Alternatively, HPC-count by advanced automated cell analyzer is cheaper, quicker, and easy-to-perform test. Our objective was to find a correlation of HPC count with CD34+ enumeration in leukapheresis. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn observational, prospective study was conducted in the year 2018-2019. A total of 126 samples were included in the study, the peripheral blood (PB) group comprised of 42samples and apheresis group of 84 samples. The samples were simultaneously tested for CD34+ expression and complete blood count which included the HPC count, white blood cells (WBC) count and multinational corporation (MNC) count and correlation analysis was performed with CD34+ flowcytometric count. The cut-off of PB HPC count for the target dose of 5 × 10
resultsThe correlation coefficient (r) of HPC with CD34+ count was 0.617 and 0.699 for PB group and apheresis group sample respectively, which was statistically significant. The correlation with MNC and WBC count was not very significant. A cut-off value of PB HPC was established to be 66 HPC/μl with a positive predictive value of 94.12%. The cost of CD34 + flow cytometric enumeration was six times that of HPC enumeration by analyzer.
conclusionThe HPC count is a cheaper, rapid and easy test and can be clinically applied to predict TTIH and AOHD but requires more studies to validate its efficacy in clinical use.
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.