ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2025
Can the icteric index be used instead of total bilirubin in addition to being a preanalytical marker? Icteric index in the laboratory.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The icteric index (I-index) is a practical and low-cost method for screening hyperbilirubinemia and potentially reducing unnecessary total bilirubin (TBil) testing. This study was designed to determine a safe I-index to detect TBil above the upper reference range to avoid unnecessary TBil orders. The reflexive addition of TBil in samples where I-index is above the cut-off value and TBil measurement is not initially planned will be a secondary gain of the study. Methods: This study included 267185 samples with TBil test results and corresponding I-index values. TBil and I-index values were measured with the Roche Cobas 8000 (c701) and Cobas 6000 (c501) analyzers. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 15.0, with ROC curve analysis used to determine the optimal I-index cut-off for TBil screening. Results: An I-index cut-off of 34.2 μmol/L provided the lowest false negativity (0.45 %), highest specificity (97.1 %), and negative predictive value (99.5 %). Using this cut-off point, if we had reached 100 % NPV, 87.4 % of TBil tests in the group receiving inpatient/outpatient treatment with Cobas-8000 and 89.8 % in the emergency group with Cobas 6000 could have been saved. Conclusions: This is the study with the largest sample size. The sample size is critical in determining a reliable I-index cut-off point. We conclude that I-index should not replace TBil since the NPV was not 100 %; however, it seems reasonable to reflexively add TBil testing in samples where the I-index is above the cut-off value and TBil measurement was not initially planned.
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.