Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31860695›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Evaluation of quantitative biosensor for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity detection.

Pairat Pengboon, Areenuch Thamwarokun, Khaimuk Changsri, Chollanot Kaset, Sirinart Chomean

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pairat PengboonGraduate Program in Medical Technology, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, Pathumtani, Thailand.
Areenuch ThamwarokunGraduate Program in Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, Pathumtani, Thailand.
Khaimuk ChangsriDepartment of Medical Technology, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, Pathumtani, Thailand.
Chollanot KasetDepartment of Medical Technology, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, Pathumtani, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-2110-6918
Sirinart ChomeanDepartment of Medical Technology, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, Pathumtani, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-2310-2934
Thammasat University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neonatal jaundice is a common and severe disease in premature infants with Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase (G-6-PD) deficiency. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended screening for G-6-PD deficiency in newborns for early recognition as well as to prevent unwanted outcomes in a timely manner. The present study aimed to assess a point-of-care, careSTARTTM G6PD biosensor as a quantitative method for the diagnosis of G-6-PD deficiency. Factors influencing the evaluation of G-6-PD enzyme activity were examined in 40 adults, including ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) anticoagulant, hematocrit concentration, storage temperature and time. Analytic performance of the careSTARTTM G6PD biosensor was evaluated in 216 newborns and compared with fluorescent spot test (FST) and standard quantitative G-6-PD enzyme activity (SGT) assay. The results of factors affecting the G-6-PD enzyme activity showed that the activity determined from finger-prick was not statistically different from venous blood (p = 0.152). The G-6-PD value was highly dependent on the hematocrit and rose with increasing hematocrit concentration. Its activity was stable at 4°C for 3 days. Reliability analysis between the careSTARTTM G6PD biosensor and SGT assay showed a strong correlation with a Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.82 and perfect agreement by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.90. Analysis of the area under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUC) illustrated that the careSTARTTM G6PD biosensor had 100% sensitivity, 96% specificity, 73% positive predictive value (PPV), 100% negative predictive value (NPV) and 97% accuracy at 30% of residual activity. While the diagnostic ability for identifying G-6-PD deficiency had 78% sensitivity, 89% specificity, 56% positive predictive value (PPV), 96% negative predictive value (NPV) and 88% accuracy when stratified by gender. The careSTARTTM G6PD biosensor is an attractive option as a point-of-care quantitative method for G-6-PD activity detection. Quantification of G-6-PD enzyme activity in newborns is the most effective approach for the management of G-6-PD deficiency to prevent severe jaundice and acute hemolysis.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsAdolescentBiosensing TechniquesBlood DonorsClinical Enzyme TestsData AccuracyFemaleGlucosephosphate DehydrogenaseGlucosephosphate Dehydrogenase DeficiencyHematologic TestsHumansInfant, NewbornJaundice, NeonatalMaleNeonatal ScreeningSensitivity and SpecificityGlucosephosphate Dehydrogenase

Identifiers

PMID31860695
PMCPMC6924682
OpenAlexW2994919555

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.