MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391754711 · doi:10.1101/2024.02.10.24302326

Diagnostic accuracy of the Point-of-Care Standard G6PD test™ (SD Biosensor) for Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency: a systematic review of the literature

2024· review· en· W4391754711 on OpenAlexaff
J Martinéz, Viviana María Vélez-Marín, Mary Lopez-Perez, Daniel Felipe Patiño-Lugo, Iván D. Flórez

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUniversidad de AntioquiaMedicines for Malaria VenturePATHBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsGlucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiencyBiosensorPoint of careGlucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenaseDehydrogenasePoint-of-care testingTest (biology)ChemistryMedicineInternal medicineBiochemistryEnzymeBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PDd) is a common genetic enzymopathy that can induce hemolysis triggered by various factors, including some anti-malarial drugs. Although many Point-of-Care (PoC) tests, such as STANDARD G6PD TM manufactured by SD biosensor (StandG6PD-BS), are available to detect G6PDd, its pooled diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) remains unknown. To estimate the DTA of StandG6PD-BS at various thresholds of G6PDd, we conducted a systematic review with a DTA meta-analysis, searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, and SciELO databases up to June 30, 2023. We included studies measuring G6PD activity using StandG6PD-BS (reference test) and spectrophotometry (gold standard) in patients suspected of having G6PDd. We assessed the risk of bias (RoB) of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool and the certainty of evidence (CoE) with the GRADE approach. Our approach included the estimation of within-study DTA, a random-effect bivariate meta-analysis to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity for 30%, 70%, and 80% enzyme levels’ thresholds, and a graphical analysis of the heterogeneity using crosshair and Confidence Regions on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space plots. After screening 2,407 reports, we included four studies with 7,864 participants covering all thresholds. Two studies had high RoB in QUADAS-2 domains 2 and 3, and the others had low RoB. We also found low, moderate, and high heterogeneity at the 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. The pooled sensitivity was 99.1% (95%CI 96.9-99.7%, CoE: high), 95.7% (92.0-97.0%, high), and 90% (78.0-96.5%, low) for 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. The pooled specificity was 97.4% (95%CI 95.0; 98.4%, high); 92.9% (85.0-96.4%, high); and 89.0% (76.0-96.0%, moderate) for 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. In conclusion, StandG6PD-BS is a PoC test with high sensitivity and specificity to detect G6PDd at different thresholds. Author summary Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PDd) is a common genetic disease that can induce the destruction of red blood cells leading to anemia triggered by various factors, including some drugs used for malaria treatment. After a literature search in different databases up to January 31, 2023, we pooled diagnostic test accuracy of the Point-of-Care (PoC) STANDARD G6PDTM test manufactured by SD biosensor (StandG6PD-BS) used to identify the G6PDd. Although two of the four studies included showed a high Risk of Bias related to the index test and the reference standard domains of the QUADAS-2 tool, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for 30%, 70%, and 80% enzyme levels’ thresholds were around 90%, with better sensitivity and specificity values for the 30% threshold (99.1% and 97.4%) compared with 70% (95.7% and 92.9%) and 80% (90% and 89%) threshold. We found low, moderate, and high heterogeneity at the 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds. In conclusion, StandG6PD-BS is a PoC test with high sensitivity and specificity to detect G6PDd at different thresholds.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207