4.2 Article

Proxy Indicators for Identifying Iron Deficiency among Anemic Vegetarians in an Area Prevalent for Thalassemia and Hemoglobinopathies

Journal

ACTA HAEMATOLOGICA
Volume 127, Issue 4, Pages 250-255

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000337032

Keywords

Anemia; Hemoglobinopathies; Iron deficiency; Thalassemia; Vegetarians

Categories

Funding

  1. Higher Education Research Promotion
  2. National Research University of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission, through the Health Cluster (SHeP-GMS), Khon Kaen University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims: The study aimed to determine the proportion of iron deficiency (ID) anemia (IDA) among vegans in northeast Thailand and to explore whether mathematical formulas derived from red blood cell (RBC) indices are applicable for IDA screening in the study population. Methods: Blood samples from 234 individuals (age 6-45 years) living in a vegan community were taken. Complete blood cell count, serum ferritin, hemoglobin profiles and DNA analysis for alpha-thalassemia were determined. Anemia was defined using the WHO criteria adjusted for age and sex. Serum ferritin <15 ng/ml was considered as ID. A number of mathematical formulas derived from RBC indices were applied to screen ID among anemic individuals. Results: Anemia was found in 41.5% (95% CI = 35.1-48.1%) of the study participants. The overall proportion of thalassemia and hemoglobinopathies was 56.4% (95% CI = 49.8-62.9%). Of the anemic participants, 45.4% had ID. Based on the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, 4 formulas were applicable for predicting ID among anemic individuals (highest sensitivity of 86.4%). Conclusions: The proposed formulas might be used as proxy indicators for the identification of ID among anemic children and adult vegans if more sophisticated laboratory determinations are not available due to limited financial resources. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available