Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28902532›Full record

ArticleThe journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society2017

Comparison of Spectrophotometry, Chromate Inhibition, and Cytofluorometry Versus Gene Sequencing for Detection of Heterozygously Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase-Deficient Females.

Anna L Peters, Martijn Veldthuis, Karin van Leeuwen, Patrick M M Bossuyt, Alexander P J Vlaar, Robin van Bruggen, Dirk de Korte, Cornelis J F Van Noorden, Rob van Zwieten

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Point-of-Care Testing for G6PD Deficiency: Opportunities for Screening.International journal of neonatal screening · 2018
    Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna L PetersDepartment of Intensive Care, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn VeldthuisDepartment of Blood Cell Research, Sanquin Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Karin van LeeuwenDepartment of Blood Cell Research, Sanquin Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Patrick M M BossuytDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alexander P J VlaarDepartment of Intensive Care, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Robin van BruggenDepartment of Blood Cell Research, Sanquin Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dirk de KorteDepartment of Blood Cell Research, Sanquin Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9772-7377
Cornelis J F Van NoordenDepartment of Medical Biology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rob van ZwietenDepartment of Blood Cell Research, Sanquin Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sanquin · NLAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is the most common enzyme deficiency worldwide. Detection of heterozygously deficient females can be difficult as residual activity in G6PD-sufficient red blood cells (RBCs) can mask deficiency. In this study, we compared accuracy of 4 methods for detection of G6PD deficiency in females. Blood samples from females more than 3 months of age were used for spectrophotometric measurement of G6PD activity and for determination of the percentage G6PD-negative RBCs by cytofluorometry. An additional sample from females suspected to have G6PD deficiency based on the spectrophotometric G6PD activity was used for measuring chromate inhibition and sequencing of the G6PD gene. Of 165 included females, 114 were suspected to have heterozygous deficiency. From 75 females, an extra sample was obtained. In this group, mutation analysis detected 27 heterozygously deficient females. The sensitivity of spectrophotometry, cytofluorometry, and chromate inhibition was calculated to be 0.52 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.71), 0.85 (CI: 0.66-0.96), and 0.96 (CI: 0.71-1.00, respectively, and the specificity was 1.00 (CI: 0.93-1.00), 0.88 (CI: 0.75-0.95), and 0.98 (CI: 0.89-1.00), respectively. Heterozygously G6PD-deficient females with a larger percentage of G6PD-sufficient RBCs are missed by routine methods measuring total G6PD activity. However, the majority of these females can be detected with both chromate inhibition and cytofluorometry.

Indexed as

HeterozygoteChromatesFemaleFlow CytometryGlucosephosphate DehydrogenaseGlucosephosphate Dehydrogenase DeficiencyHumansInfantSpectrophotometryChromatesGlucosephosphate Dehydrogenasechrome inhibitioncytofluorometryfemalesgene sequencingglucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiencyspectrophotometry

Identifiers

PMID28902532
PMCPMC5665106
OpenAlexW2754974241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.