Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28893237›Full record

ReviewMalaria journal2017

Methods for the field evaluation of quantitative G6PD diagnostics: a review.

Benedikt Ley, Germana Bancone, Lorenz von Seidlein, Kamala Thriemer, Jack S Richards, Gonzalo J Domingo, Ric N Price

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Malaria journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Benedikt LeyGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia. benedikt.ley@menzies.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-5734-0845
Germana BanconeShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Lorenz von SeidleinMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Bangkok, Thailand.
Kamala ThriemerGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
Jack S RichardsMalaria Elimination Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Gonzalo J DomingoDiagnostics Global Program, PATH, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ric N PriceGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
Charles Darwin University · AUBurnet Institute · AUMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit · THMahidol University · THProgram for Appropriate Technology in Health · US

Funding

Wellcome Trust 089179Wellcome Trust 200909Wellcome Trust 200909/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency are at risk of severe haemolysis following the administration of 8-aminoquinoline compounds. Primaquine is the only widely available 8-aminoquinoline for the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax. Tafenoquine is under development with the potential to simplify treatment regimens, but point-of-care (PoC) tests will be needed to provide quantitative measurement of G6PD activity prior to its administration. There is currently a lack of appropriate G6PD PoC tests, but a number of new tests are in development and are likely to enter the market in the coming years. As these are implemented, they will need to be validated in field studies. This article outlines the technical details for the field evaluation of novel quantitative G6PD diagnostics such as sample handling, reference testing and statistical analysis. Field evaluation is based on the comparison of paired samples, including one sample tested by the new assay at point of care and one sample tested by the gold-standard reference method, UV spectrophotometry in an established laboratory. Samples can be collected as capillary or venous blood; the existing literature suggests that potential differences in capillary or venous blood are unlikely to affect results substantially. The collection and storage of samples is critical to ensure preservation of enzyme activity, it is recommended that samples are stored at 4 °C and testing occurs within 4 days of collection. Test results can be visually presented as scatter plot, Bland-Altman plot, and a histogram of the G6PD activity distribution of the study population. Calculating the adjusted male median allows categorizing results according to G6PD activity to calculate standard performance indicators and to perform receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsGlucosephosphate DehydrogenaseGlucosephosphate Dehydrogenase DeficiencyHumansMass ScreeningGlucosephosphate Dehydrogenase

Identifiers

PMID28893237
PMCPMC5594530
OpenAlexW2756281098

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.