ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Clinical perspectives on hemoglobin measurement: The example of malaria radical cure.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemoglobin (Hb) testing is widely used to inform clinical care and assess population health. A World Health Organization (WHO)-UNICEF expert group recently recommended use of venous blood tested using an automated hematology analyzer as best practice for Hb measurement in population surveys. Recently updated WHO guidelines recommend the same methods for both populations and individuals. However, in low-resource settings where these methods are often inaccessible, the performance and clinical utility of simpler methods, defined by their accuracy for key clinical decisions and impact on patient management, should be considered. We discuss Hb test performance requirements for clinical contexts as opposed to population surveys, and consider acceptability criteria specific to a test's context and intended use. Using the example of malaria case management and radical cure, we consider the clinical risk/benefit of the incidental Hb measurement provided on a point-of-care (POC) test for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency (the STANDARD G6PD Test), which is required to inform optimal malaria radical cure. We review evidence from clinical evaluations, where Hb was measured in venous and capillary blood using the HemoCue 201+ and the STANDARD G6PD Test, and compared to venous Hb results from an automated hematology analyzer. If Hb was not measured, radical cure could be incorrectly prescribed or withheld in more individuals with severe anemia, relative to treatment errors that could be made if any POC Hb test method were used. Overall agreement with the gold-standard Hb measure varied from 98.4% to 99.5% for identifying severe anemia. In the absence of Hb POC testing, diagnosing anemia based on clinical signs is unlikely to improve these results. We highlight the importance of evaluating the acceptable performance of POC tests by considering clinical risks/benefits specific to the intended use and health system context to improve case management where alternate solutions are unavailable or unaffordable.
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.