ArticlePediatrics2015
Point-of-Care Quantitative Measure of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Enzyme Deficiency.
Article in Pediatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital microfluidics comes of age: high-throughput screening to bedside diagnostic testing for genetic disorders in newborns.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2018Pooled it
- Controversies in our understanding of extreme hyperbilirubinemia in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-deficient neonates.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- Preliminary Investigation into the Prevalence of G6PD Deficiency in a Pediatric African American Population Using a Near-Patient Diagnostic Platform.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency among neonates with jaundice in Africa; systematic review and meta-analysis.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency and Neonatal Hyperbilirubinemia: Insights on Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Gene Variants in Disease Heterogeneity.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- A novel point-of-care device for measuring glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase enzyme deficiency.Seminars in perinatology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Quantitative Test for Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency: Bringing Quantitative Testing for Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency Closer to the Patient.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019Article
- Prevalence of inherited blood disorders and associations with malaria and anemia in Malawian children.Blood advances · 2018Article
- Validation of the quantitative point-of-care CareStart biosensor for assessment of G6PD activity in venous blood.PloS one · 2018Article
- Point-of-Care Testing for G6PD Deficiency: Opportunities for Screening.International journal of neonatal screening · 2018Review
- Diagnostic performances of the fluorescent spot test for G6PD deficiency in newborns along the Thailand-Myanmar border: A cohort study.Wellcome open research · 2018Article
- The African-American neonate at risk for extreme hyperbilirubinemia: a better management strategy is needed.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2017Article
- Prevalence of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency in neonates in Egypt.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWidespread newborn screening on a point-of-care basis could prevent bilirubin neurotoxicity in newborns with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. We evaluated a quantitative G6PD assay on a digital microfluidic platform by comparing its performance with standard clinical methods.
methodsG6PD activity was measured quantitatively by using digital microfluidic fluorescence and the gold standard fluorescence biochemical test on a convenience sample of 98 discarded blood samples. Twenty-four samples were designated as G6PD deficient.
resultsMean ± SD G6PD activity for normal samples using the digital microfluidic method and the standard method, respectively, was 9.7 ± 2.8 and 11.1 ± 3.0 U/g hemoglobin (Hb), respectively; for G6PD-deficient samples, it was 0.8 ± 0.7 and 1.4 ± 0.9 U/g Hb. Bland-Altman analysis determined a mean difference of -0.96 ± 1.8 U/g Hb between the digital microfluidic fluorescence results and the standard biochemical test results. The lower and upper limits for the digital microfluidic platform were 4.5 to 19.5 U/g Hb for normal samples and 0.2 to 3.7 U/g Hb for G6PD-deficient samples. The lower and upper limits for the Stanford method were 5.5 to 20.7 U/g Hb for normal samples and 0.1 to 2.8 U/g Hb for G6PD-deficient samples. The measured activity discriminated between G6PD-deficient samples and normal samples with no overlap.
conclusionsPending further validation, a digital microfluidics platform could be an accurate point-of-care screening tool for rapid newborn G6PD screening.
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.