ArticleCureus2026
Detailed Comparison of Westergren ESR and Automated 18°C ESR Using the YHLO VISION ESR Analyzer: A Comprehensive Assessment in an Indian Cohort.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is a widely used, simple, and cost-effective test for diagnosing and monitoring conditions. Although the Westergren method is the gold standard, it has limitations like long processing times, infection risks, and a requirement for citrated blood samples. Automated ESR methods have been developed to overcome these issues. Materials and methods Blood samples were obtained from 4,000 patients who visited the central laboratory for ESR testing after providing informed consent. Each sample was first tested for ESR using the YHLO VISION ESR V4.0 Analyzer (Shenzhen YHLO Biotech Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) and subsequently analyzed with the manual Westergren method. The analysis included calculations of mean and standard deviation, Bland-Altman agreement assessment, linear regression, and Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate the relationship between the two methods. Result Using data from 4,000 patient specimens, results demonstrated good agreement between methods with 94.65% of measurements within acceptable limits, a strong positive linear correlation (r = 0.9809, R² = 0.9621), and a systematic bias of 4.95 mm/h. Both methods effectively distinguished between patients with and without clinical evidence of elevated ESR (p < 0.001). Conclusions The 18°C measurement method provides a viable alternative with high clinical reliability and potential for cost-effectiveness.
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.