ArticleEnvironmental health and preventive medicine2011
Assessment of accuracy of immediate blood separation method: a novel blood analysis strategy.
Article in Environmental health and preventive medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study assesses the accuracy of the immediate blood separation method, a novel blood sampling strategy that enables blood analysis in any possible location.
methodsWe conducted a cross-validation study between data from immediate blood separation and conventional methods. During the annual medical examinations in 2006 of a company located in an Osaka suburb, blood was drawn from workers (n = 256; males 200, females 56) by puncturing their middle finger as well as venipuncture of the antecubital vein, by medical personnel. The following nine parameters were evaluated by autoanalyzer: aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (γGT), triglyceride, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, urea nitrogen, uric acid, and creatinine.
resultsAfter comparing data from the two methods using correlation analysis and regression analysis, we found a close R (2) value (coefficient of determination) relationship that ranged from 0.996 to 1.000 for each item. The R (2) value was 0.998 for Log AST, 0.997 for Log ALT, 0.999 for Log γGT, 1.000 for Log triglyceride, 1.000 for total cholesterol, 0.999 for HDL cholesterol, 0.998 for urea nitrogen, 0.999 for uric acid, and 0.996 for creatinine. Relationship was satisfactory for all nine items tested.
conclusionOur results prove the reliability of data from the immediate blood separation method in an occupational health setting. The method enables self-testing by medically unskilled people, which is an important process to prevent lifestyle-related diseases.
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.