Comparative analysis of diagnostic methods for G6PD deficiency: fluorescent spot test versus quantitative methods

Introduction: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is a prevalent enzymopathy with significant public health implications. This study compares the diagnostic performance of the fluorescent spot test (FST), a qualitative method, with two quantitative assays--namely, the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended method and the Glock and McLean (G&Mc) method--to assess their reliability and applicability. Methods: A total of 221 blood samples collected between 2009 and 2021 were analyzed. Hemolysates were prepared under controlled conditions to preserve enzyme activity. Quantitative assays measured nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate(NADPH) production using spectrophotometry, while the FST provided visual confirmation under ultraviolet light. Median G6PD activities were calculated, and the sensitivity and specificity of the FST were evaluated against activity thresholds defined by the quantitative methods. Results: The adjusted male median G6PD activity was 12.6 IU/gHb for the WHO method and 8.8 IU/gHb for the G&Mc method. The FST exhibited high sensitivity and specificity across different thresholds, with near-perfect performance at 30% activity and above. Conclusion: The FST is a reliable tool for field-based screening of G6PD deficiency, demonstrating robust sensitivity and specificity. Quantitative methods offer enhanced precision for detailed evaluations, supporting their complementary roles in diagnostics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion Medicine
Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.69898/jhtm.35.2025.276481
Primary Topic
Neonatal Health and Biochemistry
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative analysis of diagnostic methods for G6PD deficiency: fluorescent spot test versus quantitative methods

Kalaya Tachavanich, Kochpinchon Chansing, Wiyakan Inthararujikul, Kleebsabai Sanpakit et al.
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion Medicine
Neonatal Health and Biochemistry
article

Comparative analysis of diagnostic methods for G6PD deficiency: fluorescent spot test versus quantitative methods

Kalaya Tachavanich, Kochpinchon Chansing, Wiyakan Inthararujikul, Kleebsabai Sanpakit, Jassada Buaboonnam
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is a prevalent enzymopathy with significant public health implications. This study compares the diagnostic performance of the fluorescent spot test (FST), a qualitative method, with two quantitative assays--namely, the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended method and the Glock and McLean (G&Mc) method--to assess their reliability and applicability. Methods: A total of 221 blood samples collected between 2009 and 2021 were analyzed. Hemolysates were prepared under controlled conditions to preserve enzyme activity. Quantitative assays measured nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate(NADPH) production using spectrophotometry, while the FST provided visual confirmation under ultraviolet light. Median G6PD activities were calculated, and the sensitivity and specificity of the FST were evaluated against activity thresholds defined by the quantitative methods. Results: The adjusted male median G6PD activity was 12.6 IU/gHb for the WHO method and 8.8 IU/gHb for the G&Mc method. The FST exhibited high sensitivity and specificity across different thresholds, with near-perfect performance at 30% activity and above. Conclusion: The FST is a reliable tool for field-based screening of G6PD deficiency, demonstrating robust sensitivity and specificity. Quantitative methods offer enhanced precision for detailed evaluations, supporting their complementary roles in diagnostics.

Journal of Hematology and Transfusion MedicineVol. 35(4)
Siriraj Hospital (TH), Mahidol University (TH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 87%
Neonatal Health and Biochemistry
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.