ArticleVox sanguinis2026
Exploring low haemoglobin density as a no-added-cost screening marker to assess iron deficiency.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2026. 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.
- Exploring low haemoglobin density as a no-added-cost screening marker to assess iron deficiency.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIron deficiency (ID), with or without anaemia, affects over 1 billion people globally. Early detection is essential, but current diagnostic tools may be costly, logistically complex and not widely accessible. This study evaluates low haemoglobin density percentage (LHD%), derived from mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration (MCHC) in routine complete blood counts (CBCs), as a no-added-cost, accessible alternative for ID screening. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 3526 adult patient records (January-April 2025) from a single-centre institution, including those with iron panel and CBC performed within 24 h. Patients were categorized as Normal, ID, ID anaemia (IDA) or anaemia without ID (AwoID). LHD% was calculated and assessed across groups using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses for cutoff determinations.
resultsMedian LHD% increased progressively from the Normal group (2.99%) to the IDA group (6.71%). ROC analysis showed modest but acceptable diagnostic performance: area under the curve (AUC) was 0.677 overall, 0.687 in non-anaemic and 0.684 in anaemic subjects. Specific LHD% cutoffs varied by context: >4.48% for general screening (61% sensitivity, 67% specificity), >7.02% for donor screening (95% specificity) and >3.74% for anaemia workup (75% sensitivity).
conclusionLHD% shows potential as a context-specific, no-added-cost screening tool for ID using existing CBC data. While its diagnostic performance is modest, its scalability and accessibility could support broader public health screening efforts. Further prospective validation is recommended.
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.