Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962599›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Region-specific laboratory reference intervals are important: A systematic review of the data from Africa.

Matt A Price, Patricia E Fast, Mercy Mshai, Maureen Lambrick, Yvonne Wangũi Machira, Lisa Gieber, Paramesh Chetty, Vincent Muturi-Kioi

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. What's in a number: Falling on the sword of cut-off points and reference limits?Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors.

Matt A PriceIAVI, New York City, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2918-1373
Patricia E FastIAVI, New York City, New York, United States of America.
Mercy MshaiIAVI, Nairobi, Kenya.
Maureen LambrickLaboratory Consultant, Cape Town, South Africa.
Yvonne Wangũi MachiraIAVI, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6583-2738
Lisa GieberIAVI, New York City, New York, United States of America.
Paramesh ChettyIAVI, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Vincent Muturi-KioiIAVI, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Region-specific laboratory reference intervals (RIs) are important for clinical trials and these data are often sparse in priority areas for research, including Africa. We reviewed data on RIs from Africa to identify gaps in the literature with a systematic review of PubMed for RI studies from Africa published ≥2010. Search focus included clinical analytic chemistry, hematology, immunological parameters and RIs. Data from adults, adolescents, children, pregnant women, and the elderly were included. We excluded manuscripts reporting data from persons with conditions that might preclude clinical trial participation in studies enrolling healthy volunteers. Of 179 identified manuscripts, 80 were included in this review, covering 20 countries with the largest number of studies in Ethiopia (n = 23, 29%). Most studies considered healthy, nonpregnant adults (n = 55, 69%). Nine (11%) studies included pregnant women, 13 (16%) included adolescents and 22 (28%) included children. Recruitment, screening, enrollment procedures and definition of age strata varied across studies. The most common type of RIs reported were hematology (66, 83%); 14 studies (18%) included flow cytometry and/or T cell counts. Other common tests or panels included liver function assays (32, 40%), renal function assays (30, 38%), lipid chemistries (17, 21%) and serum electrolytes (17, 21%). The number of parameters characterized ranged from only one (three studies characterized either CD4+ counts, D-dimer, or hemoglobin), to as many as 40. Statistical methods for calculating RIs varied. 56 (70%) studies compared their results to international RI databases. Though most presented their data side-by-side with international data with little accompanying analysis, nearly all reported deviation from comparator RI data, sometimes with half or more of otherwise healthy participants having an "out of range" result. We found there is limited local RI data available in sub-Saharan Africa. Studies to fill this gap are warranted, including efforts to standardize statistical methods to derive RIs, methods to compare with other RIs, and improve representative participant selection.

Identifiers

PMID36962599
PMCPMC10021479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read149
identifiers read6
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.