Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36523222›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Technical evaluation and usability of a quantitative G6PD POC test in cord blood: a mixed-methods study in a low-resource setting.

Germana Bancone, Mary Ellen Gilder, Elsie Win, Gornpan Gornsawun, Penporn Penpitchaporn, Phaw Khu Moo, Laypaw Archasuksan, Nan San Wai, Sylverine Win, Ko Ko Aung and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Germana BanconeShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand germana@tropmedres.ac.ORCID 0000-0003-4550-0431
Mary Ellen GilderShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Elsie WinShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Gornpan GornsawunShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Penporn PenpitchapornShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Phaw Khu MooShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Laypaw ArchasuksanShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Nan San WaiShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Sylverine WinShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Ko Ko AungShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Ahmar HashmiInstitute for Implementation Science, University of Texas Health Sciences Center (UTHealth), Houston, Texas, USA.
Borimas HanboonkunupakarnMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Francois NostenShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-7951-0745
Verena Ilona CarraraShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Rose McGreadyShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1621-3257
Mahidol University · THThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 220211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesNew point-of-care (POC) quantitative G6PD testing devices developed to provide safe radical cure for

methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study analysing technical performance and usability of the 'STANDARD G6PD' Biosensor when used by trained midwives on cord blood samples at two rural clinics on the Thailand-Myanmar border.

resultsIn 307 cord blood samples, the Biosensor had a sensitivity of 1.000 (95% CI: 0.859 to 1.000) and a specificity of 0.993 (95% CI: 0.971 to 0.999) as compared with gold-standard spectrophotometry to diagnose G6PD-deficient newborns using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis-derived threshold of ≤4.8 IU/gHb. The Biosensor had a sensitivity of 0.727 (95% CI: 0.498 to 0.893) and specificity of 0.933 (95% CI: 0.876 to 0.969) for 30%-70% activity range in girls using ROC analysis-derived range of 4.9-9.9 IU/gHb. These thresholds allowed identification of all G6PD-deficient neonates and 80% of female neonates with intermediate phenotypes.Need of phototherapy treatment for neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia was higher in neonates with deficient and intermediate phenotypes as diagnosed by either reference spectrophotometry or Biosensor.Focus group discussions found high levels of learnability, willingness, satisfaction and suitability for the Biosensor in this setting. The staff valued the capacity of the Biosensor to identify newborns with G6PD deficiency early ('We can know that early, we can counsel the parents about the chances of their children getting jaundice') and at the POC, including in more rural settings ('Because we can know the right result of the G6PD deficiency in a short time, especially for the clinic which does not have a lab').

conclusionsThe Biosensor is a suitable tool in this resource-constrained setting to identify newborns with abnormal G6PD phenotypes at increased risk of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia.

Indexed as

Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase DeficiencyHyperbilirubinemia, NeonatalMalaria, VivaxSodium OxybateFemaleFetal BloodHumansInfant, NewbornSodium Oxybatemolecular biologyneonatologypaediatrics

Identifiers

PMID36523222
PMCPMC9748916
OpenAlexW4311249016

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.