4.8 Article

Disposable platform provides visual and color-based point-of-care anemia self-testing

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 124, 期 10, 页码 4387-4394

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI76666

关键词

-

资金

  1. FDA [P50FD004193]
  2. Georgia Research Alliance
  3. Children's Healthcare of Atlanta
  4. Georgia Center of Innovation for Manufacturing
  5. InVenture Prize
  6. Ideas to Serve competitions at the Georgia Institute of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. Anemia, or low blood hemoglobin (Hgb) levels, afflicts 2 billion people worldwide. Currently, Hgb levels are typically measured from blood samples using hematology analyzers, which are housed in hospitals, clinics, or commercial laboratories and require skilled technicians to operate. A reliable, inexpensive point-of-care (POC) Hgb test would enable cost-effective anemia screening and chronically anemic patients to self-monitor their disease. We present a rapid, stand-alone, and disposable POC anemia test that, via a single drop of blood, outputs color-based visual results that correlate with Hgb levels. METHODS. We tested blood from 238 pediatric and adult patients with anemia of varying degrees and etiologies and compared hematology analyzer Hgb levels with POC Hgb levels, which were estimated via visual interpretation using a color scale and an optional smartphone app for automated analysis. RESULTS. POC Hgb levels correlated with hematology analyzer Hgb levels (r = 0.864 and r = 0.856 for visual interpretation and smartphone app, respectively), and both POC test methods yielded comparable sensitivity and specificity for detecting any anemia (n = 178) (<11 g/dl) (sensitivity: 90.2% and 91.1%, specificity: 83.7% and 79.2%, respectively) and severe anemia (n = 10) (<7 g/dl) (sensitivity: 90.0% and 100%, specificity: 94.6% and 93.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS. These results demonstrate the feasibility of this POC color-based diagnostic test for self-screening/self-monitoring of anemia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据