Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31231815›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2019

Hemoglobin concentration and anemia diagnosis in venous and capillary blood: biological basis and policy implications.

Lynnette M Neufeld, Leila M Larson, Anura Kurpad, Sheila Mburu, Reynaldo Martorell, Kenneth H Brown

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Lynnette M NeufeldGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2652-9108
Leila M LarsonGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2570-7323
Anura KurpadSaint John's Medical College, Bangalore, India.
Sheila MburuIndependent Consultant for GAIN, London, UK.
Reynaldo MartorellRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Kenneth H BrownBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington.
Emory University · USGates Foundation · USGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition · CHIndependent Age · GBSt.John's Medical College Hospital · INThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anemia is an important public health challenge and accurate prevalence estimates are needed for program planning and tracking progress. While venous blood assessed by automated hematology analyzers is considered gold standard, most population-based surveys use point-of-care diagnostics and capillary blood to estimate population prevalence of anemia. Several factors influence hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, including human and analytic error, analysis method, and type of instrument, but it is unclear whether biological variability exists between venous and capillary blood. The objective of this paper was to systematically review sources of Hb variability and the potential biological basis for venous and capillary differences. We use data from a recent survey in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India, to illustrate the implications on anemia prevalence estimates. Significant differences in Hb concentration between capillary and venous blood samples are common. Most but not all find capillary Hb concentration to be higher than venous. Instrument/method variability and human error play an important role, but cannot fully explain these differences. A normative guide to data collection, analysis, and anemia diagnosis is needed to ensure consistent and appropriate interpretation. Further research is needed to fully understand the biological implications of venous and capillary Hb variability.

Indexed as

AnemiaData CollectionHemoglobinometryHemoglobinsHumansHemoglobinsanemiacapillarydiagnosishemoglobinvenous

Identifiers

PMID31231815
PMCPMC7496102
OpenAlexW2955347707

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.