ArticleBiochemia medica2021
Utility of icteric index in clinical laboratories: more than a preanalytical indicator.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of the I-index as a pre-screening tool for total bilirubin testing: a retrospective study in a regional hospital.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- [The prognostic value of colonoscopy grading for acute graft-versus-host disease in patients with malignant hematological disorders after unrelated cord blood transplantation].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2024Article
- Utility of serum indices in a particular case of serum protein electrophoresis.Biochemia medica · 2022Article
- Data on the frequency and causes of icteric interference in clinical chemistry laboratory tests.Data in brief · 2022Article
- Frequency of icteric interference in clinical chemistry laboratory tests and causes of severe icterus.Practical laboratory medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTotal bilirubin tests are highly demanded in clinical laboratories. Since icteric index (I-index) has zero cost, we aimed to evaluate its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness to determine if total bilirubin is necessary to be tested. We took into account if haemolysis could interfere to icteric index determination. MATERIAL AND
methodsRetrospectively we reviewed I-index results in two cohorts (43,372 and 8507 non-haemolysed and haemolysed samples, respectively). All determinations were done using Alinity c chemistry analysers (Abbott Diagnostics). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the optimal index cut-off to discriminate between normal and abnormal bilirubin concentration (20.5 µmol/L).
resultsThe ROC curve analysis suggested 21.4 µmol/L as the optimal I-index cut-off but differences in sensitivity and specificity were detected between patient derivation. For rejecting purpose, 15.4 µmol/L and 17.1 µmol/L I-index thresholds were selected based on patient derivation (inpatients and emergency room; and primary care and outpatients, respectively) with 97% sensitivity and 0.25% false negative results. Sensitivity was much lower in haemolysed samples. We selected 34.2 µmol/L I-index as threshold to detect hyperbilirubinemia with 99.7% specificity and 0.26% false positive results, independent of haemolysis. With the icteric index cut-offs proposed, we would save 66% of total bilirubin requested and analyse total bilirubin in around 2% of samples without total bilirubin requested.
conclusionsThis study supports the use of I-index to avoid bilirubin determination and to identify patients with hyperbilirubinemia. This work considers that the economic and test savings could help to increase the efficiency in clinical laboratories.
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.