SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Performance of quantitative point-of-care tests to measure G6PD activity: An individual participant data meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is the main risk factor for severe haemolysis following treatment with 8-aminoquinolines (8AQ). The World Health Organization recommends G6PD testing prior to 8AQ-based hypnozoitocidal treatment.
methodsWe undertook an individual level meta-analysis of the performance of commercially available quantitative point-of-care diagnostics (PoCs) compared with reference spectrophotometry. A systematic literature search (PROSPERO: CRD42022330733) identified 595 articles of which 16 (2.7%) fulfilled pre-defined inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis, plus an additional 4 datasets. In total there were 12,678 paired measurements analyzed, 10,446 (82.4%) by STANDARD G6PD Test (SD Biosensor, RoK, [SDB]), 2,042 (16.1%) by CareStart G6PD Biosensor (AccessBio, USA, [CSA]), 150 (1.2%) by CareStart Biosensor (WellsBio, RoK [CSW]), and 40 (0.3%) by FINDER (Baebies, USA, [FBA]).
findingsThe pooled sensitivities of the SDB when measuring G6PD activity <30% of normal were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-0.89) for capillary and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.75-0.99) for venous blood samples. The corresponding values for measuring <70% G6PD activity were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.67-0.99) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.73-0.96), respectively. The pooled specificity of the SDB was high (>96%) for all blood samples and G6PD activity thresholds. Irrespective of the blood samples and thresholds applied, sensitivity of the CSA did not exceed 62%, although specificity remained high at both 30% and 70% thresholds (>88%). Only one study each for CSW and FBA was included. Sensitivities of the CSW were 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01-0.14) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.89) at the 30% and 70% thresholds, respectively (venous blood samples). Sensitivities of the FBA were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.29-1.00) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.19-0.99) at the 30% and 70% thresholds (venous blood samples). Specificities of the CSW and FBA were consistently high (>90%) at both thresholds. Accuracy of the SDB was higher in females at the 30% cut-off (OR: 3.49, p=0.002) and lower in malaria patients at the 70% cut-off (OR: 0.59, p = 0.005).
conclusionsThe SDB performed better than other PoCs. More evidence was available for the performance of the SDB compared to other PoCs, giving higher confidence in its utility in diagnosing G6PD deficiency.
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.