ArticleBMC medicine2020
AnemoCheck-LRS: an optimized, color-based point-of-care test to identify severe anemia in limited-resource settings.
Article in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of Gazelle Microchip Electrophoresis for Premarital Hemoglobinopathy Screening in Türkiye.EJHaem · 2026Article
- A Universal Optical Microanalysis Platform Based on Micropipette Tips.Sensors and actuators. B, Chemical · 2026Article
- Advances toward At-Home Measurements of Complete Blood Cell Counts and Other Hematological Parameters.Analytical chemistry · 2025Review
- Machine reading and recovery of colors for hemoglobin-related bioassays and bioimaging.Science advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Prediction of anemia in real-time using a smartphone camera processing conjunctival images.PloS one · 2024Article
- Point-of-care microchip electrophoresis for integrated anemia and hemoglobin variant testing.Lab on a chip · 2021Article
- Emerging point-of-care technologies for anemia detection.Lab on a chip · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSevere anemia is common and frequently fatal for hospitalized patients in limited-resource settings. Lack of access to low-cost, accurate, and rapid diagnosis of anemia impedes the delivery of life-saving care and appropriate use of the limited blood supply. The WHO Haemoglobin Colour Scale (HCS) is a simple low-cost test but frequently inaccurate. AnemoCheck-LRS (limited-resource settings) is a rapid, inexpensive, color-based point-of-care (POC) test optimized to diagnose severe anemia.
methodsDeidentified whole blood samples were diluted with plasma to create variable hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations, with most in the severe (≤ 7 g/dL) or profound (≤ 5 g/dL) anemia range. Each sample was tested with AnemoCheck-LRS and WHO HCS independently by three readers and compared to Hb measured by an electronic POC test (HemoCue 201
resultsFor 570 evaluations within the limits of detection of AnemoCheck-LRS (Hb ≤ 8 g/dL), the average difference between AnemoCheck-LRS and measured Hb was 0.5 ± 0.4 g/dL. In contrast, the WHO HCS overestimated Hb with an absolute difference of 4.9 ± 1.3 g/dL for samples within its detection range (Hb 4-14 g/dL, n = 405). AnemoCheck-LRS was much more sensitive (92%) for the diagnosis of profound anemia than WHO HCS (22%).
conclusionsAnemoCheck-LRS is a rapid, inexpensive, and accurate POC test for anemia. AnemoCheck-LRS is more accurate than WHO HCS for detection of low Hb levels, severe anemia that may require blood transfusion. AnemoCheck-LRS should be tested prospectively in limited-resource settings where severe anemia is common, to determine its utility as a screening tool to identify patients who may require transfusion.
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.