The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Point of Care Diagnostics: Status and Future
Open accessAbstract
The most commonly used test for monitoring heparin therapy is the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). The response of available aPTT reagents to heparin varies significantly. The aim of this study was to highlight the differences between aPTT reagents stored in a dried format to select the most suitable formulations to be used for the development of point-of-care diagnostic devices used for monitoring of unfractionated heparin dose response. METHODS:\nTen reagents were analysed in terms of their performance in liquid and in dried form after storage for 24 h and 14 days. Performance was assessed by measurement of the clotting time (CT) as evidenced by the onset of thrombin formation using a chromogenic thrombin substrate in plasma samples activated with these formulations. RESULTS:\nReagents in all of the three forms tested (liquid, 24 h and 14 days) resulted in significant shortening of CTs in comparison with the nonactivated plasma CT. Liquids returned more rapid CTs in comparison with dried reagents. Most of the reagents were more sensitive to heparin in dried, rather than in liquid form. Dried reagents based on kaolin as a surface activator were notably more effective in achieving short CT than others, while dried reagents composed of silica and synthetic phospholipids were the most sensitive to heparin. CONCLUSION:\nTwo reagents, namely aPTT-SP and SynthASIL both of which are based on synthetic phospholipids and silica, were identified as promising candidates for incorporation into point-of-care diagnostic device platforms as dried reagents.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Electrochemical Glucose Biosensors
Wang, J. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr068123a · Cited by 3,498
Electrochemical Glucose Sensors and Their Applications in Diabetes Management
Heller, A., & Feldman, B. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr068069y · Cited by 1,707
Price, M. J., Endemann, S., Gollapudi, R. R., Valencia, R., Stinis, C. T., Levisay, J. P., Ernst, A., Sawhney, N. S., Schatz, R. A., & Teirstein, P. S. (2008) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn046 · Cited by 651
Point-of-care tests for diagnosing infections in the developing world
Peeling, R. W., & Mabey, D. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03279.x · Cited by 500
Quantitative analysis of ammonia on the breath of patients in end-stage renal failure
Davies, S., Spanel, P., & Smith, D. (1997) · Kidney International · doi:10.1038/ki.1997.324 · Cited by 406
Glucose meter performance criteria for tight glycemic control estimated by simulation modeling
Karon, B. S., Boyd, J. C., & Klee, G. G. (2010) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2010.145367 · Cited by 94
Cited by
Point of care testing: The impact of nanotechnology
Syedmoradi, L., Daneshpour, M., Alvandipour, M., Gomez, F. A., Hajghassem, H., & Omidfar, K. (2017) · Biosensors and Bioelectronics · doi:10.1016/j.bios.2016.08.084 · Cited by 367
Courbet, A., Endy, D., Renard, E., Molina, F., & Bonnet, J. (2015) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa3601 · Cited by 266
The relevance and potential roles of microphysiological systems in biology and medicine
Wikswo, J. P. (2014) · Experimental Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1177/1535370214542068 · Cited by 248
Strathmann, F. G., Schulte, S., Goerl, K., & Petron, D. J. (2014) · Clinical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.01.028 · Cited by 98
The application of nanoparticles in point-of-care testing (POCT) immunoassays
Hou, F., Sun, S., Abdullah, S. W., Tang, Y., Li, X., & Guo, H. (2023) · Analytical Methods · doi:10.1039/d3ay00182b · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Gubala, V., Harris, L. F., Ricco, A. J., Tan, M. X., & Williams, D. E.
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2011-12-21
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 487-515
- ISSN
- 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6882
- OpenAlex
- W2076958395
- Cited by
- 1,194
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 39.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.