2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2016.03.044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors Governing the Accuracy of Subvisible Particle Counting Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
11
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
3
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3). Similar to literature reports on SMPs 28,46 and as discussed earlier for the shared protein control, NTA resulted in overall higher particle concentration than RMM. Although the particle concentration between the methods were orders of magnitude different, a weak positive correlation exists between the 2 techniques (Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.39, p ¼ 0.006, Table 1), indicating a link between the outcomes from these 2 techniques.…”
Section: Submicron Particle Analysis On Late-phase Clinical and Commesupporting
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…3). Similar to literature reports on SMPs 28,46 and as discussed earlier for the shared protein control, NTA resulted in overall higher particle concentration than RMM. Although the particle concentration between the methods were orders of magnitude different, a weak positive correlation exists between the 2 techniques (Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.39, p ¼ 0.006, Table 1), indicating a link between the outcomes from these 2 techniques.…”
Section: Submicron Particle Analysis On Late-phase Clinical and Commesupporting
confidence: 88%
“…29 However, significant differences (approximately 2 orders of magnitude) were observed in the protein control particle concentration between the 2 techniques (Figs. 2c vs. 2d) that is consistent with the published results for a low-concentration therapeutic protein product, 28 suggesting that the observed difference is not sample-related but likely arises from the particle counting technology. The higher particle concentration by NTA can partly be explained by differences in the particle size limits of the 2 techniques, that is, the mean particle size measured by RMM was greater than that by NTA (a difference of >200 nm, Appendix E-2).…”
Section: System Suitability Standards: Polystyrene Beads For Size Andsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Using the flow imaging microscopy method, we found that SvP contaminationsdand cell debrisdcan be differentiated from actual cells in cell therapy products by the analyst. While the flow imaging microscopy method is currently not suggested for quality control purposes for traditional drug products, 17,22 the method may offer value in a process assessment related to minimizing potential particulate contaminations and support product development and the particle control strategy for cell therapy products.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[13][14][15][16] Even though MFI and FlowCAM are based on the same measurement principle, they differ in resolution and particle parameters. 17 However, in some cases, MFI may provide more accurate particle determinations. 15,16,18 Flow imaging methods also provide the benefit of morphological assessments; hence, the differentiation of different particle species may be achievable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%