Diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care standard G6PD test™ (SD Biosensor) for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PDd) is a common genetic enzymopathy that can induce haemolysis triggered by various factors, including some anti-malarial drugs. Although many Point-of-Care (PoC) tests, such as Standard G6PD™ are available to detect G6PDd, its pooled diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) remains unknown. METHODS: To estimate the DTA of StandG6PD-BS at various thresholds of G6PDd, a systematic review with a DTA meta-analysis were conducted, searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, and SciELO databases up to April 4, 2024.The included studies were those that measured G6PD activity using StandG6PD-BS (reference test) and spectrophotometry (gold standard) in patients suspected of having G6PDd. The risk of bias (RoB) of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool and the certainty of evidence (CoE) with the GRADE approach. For the estimation of within-study DTA, a random-effect bivariate meta-analysis was performed 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. RESULTS: After screening 2496 reports, four studies were included with 7864 participants covering all thresholds. Two studies had high RoB in QUADAS-2 domains 2 and 3, and the others had low RoB, with low, moderate, and high heterogeneity at the 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. The pooled sensitivity was 99.1%, 95.7%, and 90% for 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. The pooled specificity was 97.4%; 92.9%; and 89.0% for 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".