Comparison of Anemia Screening Methods Using Paired Venous Samples in Women of Reproductive Age in Southern India.

A. Fothergill, Krista S. Crider, Christina B. Johnson, Mical P Raj, Heather M. Guetterman, Beena Bose, C. Rose, Y. Qi, Jennifer L Williams, R. Kuriyan, Wesley Bonam, J. Finkelstein
{"title":"Comparison of Anemia Screening Methods Using Paired Venous Samples in Women of Reproductive Age in Southern India.","authors":"A. Fothergill, Krista S. Crider, Christina B. Johnson, Mical P Raj, Heather M. Guetterman, Beena Bose, C. Rose, Y. Qi, Jennifer L Williams, R. Kuriyan, Wesley Bonam, J. Finkelstein","doi":"10.1093/cdn/nzac060.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nAnemia is an important public health problem, and accurate estimates may inform policy and programs. Although hemoglobin assessment of venous blood via automated hematology analyzers (AHA) is recommended, most population-based surveys are based on analysis of capillary blood via portable hemoglobinometers to estimate anemia prevalence.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nTo evaluate screening methods for hemoglobin and anemia assessment using paired venous samples.\n\n\nDESIGN\nParticipants were women of reproductive age (15-40y) who were not pregnant or lactating. Paired venous whole blood samples (n = 896) were analyzed for hemoglobin (Hb) via portable hemoglobinometer (HemoCue 301) and Coulter Counter AHA. Anemia and severe anemia were defined as Hb <12.0 and <8.0 g/dL, respectively. Bland-Altman methods were used to assess level of agreement for Hb results (mean difference, standard deviation of differences, limits of agreement). Diagnostic accuracy parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy) were calculated to evaluate HemoCue performance compared to the AHA reference, overall and by sociodemographic, nutritional, and metabolic characteristics.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe estimated anemia prevalence was significantly lower via HemoCue vs. AHA (36.3% vs. 41.6%; p-value <0.0001). The HemoCue had 84.4% accuracy for anemia screening and 98.8% for severe anemia, compared to the AHA reference. The HemoCue had 74.8% sensitivity and 91.2% specificity, compared to AHA. HemoCue sensitivity was higher in WRA with iron deficiency (SF<15.0 μg/L 81.6% vs. SF ≥15.0 μg/L: 41.3%), and lower in WRA with metabolic risk factors, including overweight (BMI≥25.0 kg/m2; 63.9% vs. 78.8%), or elevated CRP (CRP>1.0 mg/L: 67.2% vs. ≤1.0 mg/L: 82.9%), trunk fat (TF>35%: 62.7% vs. ≤35%: 80.1), or whole-body fat (WBF >35%: 63.9% vs. ≤35%: 80.3%).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nFindings suggest that women with anemia may be incorrectly identified as not anemic via portable hemoglobinometer, and the anemia prevalence may be underestimated at the population level. Registration number: NCT04048330.","PeriodicalId":22788,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzac060.025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anemia is an important public health problem, and accurate estimates may inform policy and programs. Although hemoglobin assessment of venous blood via automated hematology analyzers (AHA) is recommended, most population-based surveys are based on analysis of capillary blood via portable hemoglobinometers to estimate anemia prevalence. OBJECTIVE To evaluate screening methods for hemoglobin and anemia assessment using paired venous samples. DESIGN Participants were women of reproductive age (15-40y) who were not pregnant or lactating. Paired venous whole blood samples (n = 896) were analyzed for hemoglobin (Hb) via portable hemoglobinometer (HemoCue 301) and Coulter Counter AHA. Anemia and severe anemia were defined as Hb <12.0 and <8.0 g/dL, respectively. Bland-Altman methods were used to assess level of agreement for Hb results (mean difference, standard deviation of differences, limits of agreement). Diagnostic accuracy parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy) were calculated to evaluate HemoCue performance compared to the AHA reference, overall and by sociodemographic, nutritional, and metabolic characteristics. RESULTS The estimated anemia prevalence was significantly lower via HemoCue vs. AHA (36.3% vs. 41.6%; p-value <0.0001). The HemoCue had 84.4% accuracy for anemia screening and 98.8% for severe anemia, compared to the AHA reference. The HemoCue had 74.8% sensitivity and 91.2% specificity, compared to AHA. HemoCue sensitivity was higher in WRA with iron deficiency (SF<15.0 μg/L 81.6% vs. SF ≥15.0 μg/L: 41.3%), and lower in WRA with metabolic risk factors, including overweight (BMI≥25.0 kg/m2; 63.9% vs. 78.8%), or elevated CRP (CRP>1.0 mg/L: 67.2% vs. ≤1.0 mg/L: 82.9%), trunk fat (TF>35%: 62.7% vs. ≤35%: 80.1), or whole-body fat (WBF >35%: 63.9% vs. ≤35%: 80.3%). CONCLUSION Findings suggest that women with anemia may be incorrectly identified as not anemic via portable hemoglobinometer, and the anemia prevalence may be underestimated at the population level. Registration number: NCT04048330.
印度南部育龄妇女配对静脉样本贫血筛查方法的比较
背景:贫血是一个重要的公共卫生问题,准确的估计可以为政策和规划提供信息。虽然建议通过自动血液学分析仪(AHA)对静脉血进行血红蛋白评估,但大多数基于人群的调查都是通过便携式血红蛋白仪对毛细血管血液进行分析,以估计贫血的患病率。目的探讨配对静脉标本对血红蛋白和贫血的筛查方法。研究对象为育龄妇女(15-40岁),未怀孕或哺乳期。采用便携式血红蛋白仪(HemoCue 301)和Coulter Counter AHA对896例配对静脉全血进行血红蛋白(Hb)检测。贫血和重度贫血定义为Hb 1.0 mg/L: 67.2% vs≤1.0 mg/L: 82.9%)、躯干脂肪(TF>35%: 62.7% vs≤35%:80.1)或全身脂肪(WBF >35%: 63.9% vs≤35%:80.3%)。结论便携式血红蛋白仪可能会错误地将女性贫血诊断为非贫血,在人群水平上贫血患病率可能被低估。注册号:NCT04048330。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信