AJCN North Carolina Research Campus
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gadomski, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Forman, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gadomski, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Forman, M. R.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Gadomski, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Forman, M. R.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 49, 495-500, Copyright © 1989 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) to detect subclinical vitamin A deficiency: comparison of CIC with biochemical assessments

AM Gadomski, CL Kjolhede, J Wittpenn, J Bulux, AR Rosas and MR Forman
Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, MD.

By use of sensitivity and specificity analysis, conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) was compared with fasting serum vitamin A levels and relative dose response (RDR) of Guatemalan children. One impression was taken from the temporal bulbar aspect of each eye, fasting serum vitamin A levels were then drawn, 480 RE of oil-based retinyl palmitate was given, and a 5-h postdosing vitamin A level was drawn (RDR procedure). For a 20% RDR cutoff, the sensitivity of CIC was 23% with a specificity of 80% and a positive predictive value of 9% (n = 213 children). Compared with fasting vitamin A levels alone (with 0.70 mumol/L as abnormal), the sensitivity of CIC was 26%, specificity was 81%, and positive predictive value was 22% (n = 221 children). There was no significant difference in the mean serum retinol level between those with abnormal and normal CIC. In this study population CIC does not identify the same group of children with marginal vitamin A as identified biochemically.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Nutr.Home page
N. G. Congdon and K. P. West Jr.
Physiologic Indicators of Vitamin A Status
J. Nutr., September 1, 2002; 132(9): 2889S - 2894.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by The American Society for Nutrition