Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34330185›Full record

Observational studyScandinavian journal of primary health care2021

Insufficient classification of anaemia in general practice: a Danish register-based observational study.

Astrid Boennelykke, Henry Jensen, Lene Sofie Granfeldt Østgård, Alina Zalounina Falborg, Kaj Sparle Christensen, Anette Tarp Hansen, Jon Emery, Peter Vedsted

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Astrid BoennelykkeResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Henry JensenResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lene Sofie Granfeldt ØstgårdDepartment of Haematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Alina Zalounina FalborgResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Kaj Sparle ChristensenResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Anette Tarp HansenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Jon EmeryDepartment of General Practice and Centre for Cancer Research, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Peter VedstedResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKAarhus University Hospital · DKOdense University Hospital · DKUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnaemia can be a pointer of underlying severe disease, including undiagnosed malignancy. Subsequent blood tests are essential to classify the anaemia into subtypes and to facilitate targeted diagnostic investigation to ensure timely diagnosis of underlying disease.

objectiveWe aimed to describe and classify anaemia based on laboratory tests from patients with new-onset anaemia detected in general practice. An additional aim was to analyse associations between patient characteristics and unclassified anaemia (not classifiable according to an algorithm).

designPopulation-based cross-sectional study.

settingDanish general practice. SUBJECTS: A total of 62,731 patients (age: 40-90 years) with new-onset anaemia were identified in Danish laboratory information systems and nationwide registries, and data were obtained for 2014-2018.

main outcome measuresWe measured the proportion of patients classified into subtypes of anaemia based on blood tests requested by general practitioners within 31 days of the anaemia index date.

resultsOf the 62,731 patients with new-onset anaemia, we identified unclassified anaemia in 78.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.3-80.5) of men and 65.1% (CI: 63.4-66.9) of women. The likelihood of unclassified anaemia increased with age, increasing comorbidity and decreasing severity of anaemia.

conclusionThe majority of patients with new-onset anaemia could not be classified through a simple algorithm due to missing blood tests, which highlights a potential missed opportunity for diagnosis. Standardised laboratory testing of patients with anaemia is warranted to ensure adequate follow-up and early detection of underlying severe disease.KEY POINTSAnaemia can be a sign of malignancy, and anaemia classification is an important step in the diagnosis of underlying disorders.The majority of patients with anaemia could not be classified according to a simple algorithm due to missing blood tests.Some patient characteristics were associated with a high risk of unclassified anaemia: high age, high comorbidity, and severe anaemia.Standardised laboratory testing in patients with anaemia is needed to inform targeted diagnostic investigation to ensure timely diagnosis.

Indexed as

AnemiaGeneral PracticeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedanaemiacross-sectional studiesDenmarkGeneral practicehaemoglobinsprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID34330185
PMCPMC8475152
OpenAlexW3185418849

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.