ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Analytical evaluation of three soluble transferrin receptor measurement systems for diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia: A retrospective study.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of roxadustat on iron metabolism in patients with peritoneal dialysis: a real-world 24-week study.European journal of medical research · 2023Trial
- β3-adrenergic blockade targets fatty acid oxidation to induce ferroptotic vulnerability in pediatric T-ALL.Biology direct · 2026Article
- Analytical evaluation of three soluble transferrin receptor measurement systems for diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia: A retrospective study.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSoluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) is a promising indicator of iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Here, we investigated the application value of sTfR assays based on three different methods for the diagnosis of IDA.
methodsThe sTfR concentrations in two groups of patient specimens with high-level and low-level sTfR concentrations and in quality control materials were measured four times a day for five consecutive days to evaluate the precision of the three methods. We selected patients with IDA, anemia of chronic disease (ACD), or chronic diseases with iron deficiency anemia (CIDA), and apparently healthy subjects, and measured the serum sTfR concentrations in all subjects using the three different methods. The cutoff points for an IDA diagnosis using the three assays and their corresponding clinical sensitivities and specificities were calculated by receiver operating characteristic analysis.
resultsFor the diagnosis of IDA, the cutoff points of sTfR measured by the chemiluminescent, immunoturbidimetric, and immunonephelometric assays were 2.91, 6.70, and 2.48 mg/L, respectively. The corresponding sensitivities were 85.59%, 85.59%, and 85.59%, the specificities were 91.47%, 90.31%, and 90.70%, and area under the curve was 0.943, 0.944, and 0.936, respectively. The sTfR concentrations measured by the different methods were significantly higher in the IDA and CIDA groups than in the other two groups (P < .05).
conclusionsThe sTfR based on the three different measurement methods presented promising analytical performances and met the clinical requirements for sensitivity and specificity. However, the different measurement methods had markedly different cutoff points for IDA diagnosis, which should be critically considered in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.