ArticleLaboratory medicine2025
Comparison of basic lymphocyte phenotype results between a diagnostic and a research laboratory.
Article in Laboratory medicine, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLymphocyte phenotyping is a valuable tool for monitoring the effects of antiretroviral therapy on individuals living with HIV-1. A switch study was conducted to compare T-cell subset quantification performed by a research laboratory and a diagnostic, laboratory to understand the impact on the retrospective and prospective results of a long-term study.
methodsUsing FACSCanto II Flow Cytometers, EDTA anticoagulated peripheral blood from 73 males enrolled in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study/Women Interagency HIV Combined Cohort Study was analyzed by both a research (laboratory 1) and a diagnostics laboratory (laboratory 2) for quantification of cluster of differentiation (CD)3, CD4, and CD8 T-cells. There were 47 males living with and 26 living without HIV-1.
resultsBland-Altman (B-A) analysis was applied to assess the agreement between laboratory 1 and laboratory 2 results. There were 69 out of 73 CD3, 71 out of 73CD4, and 72 out of 73 CD8 T-cell results that fell within acceptable B-A limits of agreement. The mean differences between the 2 laboratories were -1.000, -0.945, and +0.685(%), respectively.
conclusionThe strong agreement between results from laboratory 1 and laboratory 2 for CD3, CD4, and CD8 T-cell percentage suggests that the difference between laboratories using the same instrumentation and methodology will have a minimal effect on long-term study results.
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.