Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28879112›Full record

ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2016

Verification of chemistry reference ranges using a simple method in sub-Saharan Africa.

Irith De Baetselier, Douglas Taylor, Justin Mandala, Kavita Nanda, Christel Van Campenhout, Walter Agingu, Lorna Madurai, Eva-Maria Barsch, Jennifer Deese, Lut Van Damme and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Irith De BaetselierInstitute of Tropical Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, STI Reference Laboratory, Nationalestraat, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1804-252X
Douglas TaylorFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Justin MandalaFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Kavita NandaFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Christel Van CampenhoutScientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Walter AginguIMPACT Research and Development Organization, Kisumu City, Kenya.
Lorna MaduraiGlobal Clinical and Viral Laboratory, Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa.
Eva-Maria BarschPathCare Bloemfontein, Quantum Building, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Jennifer DeeseFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Lut Van DammeFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Tania CrucittiInstitute of Tropical Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, STI Reference Laboratory, Nationalestraat, Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChemistry safety assessments are interpreted by using chemistry reference ranges (CRRs). Verification of CRRs is time consuming and often requires a statistical background.

objectivesWe report on an easy and cost-saving method to verify CRRs.

methodsUsing a former method introduced by Sigma Diagnostics, three study sites in sub-Saharan Africa, Bondo, Kenya, and Pretoria and Bloemfontein, South Africa, verified the CRRs for hepatic and renal biochemistry assays performed during a clinical trial of HIV antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis. The aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase, creatinine and phosphorus results from 10 clinically-healthy participants at the screening visit were used. In the event the CRRs did not pass the verification, new CRRs had to be calculated based on 40 clinically-healthy participants.

resultsWithin a few weeks, the study sites accomplished verification of the CRRs without additional costs. The aspartate aminotransferase reference ranges for the Bondo, Kenya site and the alanine aminotransferase reference ranges for the Pretoria, South Africa site required adjustment. The phosphorus CRR passed verification and the creatinine CRR required adjustment at every site. The newly-established CRR intervals were narrower than the CRRs used previously at these study sites due to decreases in the upper limits of the reference ranges. As a result, more toxicities were detected.

conclusionTo ensure the safety of clinical trial participants, verification of CRRs should be standard practice in clinical trials conducted in settings where the CRR has not been validated for the local population. This verification method is simple, inexpensive, and can be performed by any medical laboratory.

Identifiers

PMID28879112
PMCPMC5436402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.