Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Witwatersrand
Department of Paediatrics
Division of Community Paediatrics
Assignment A: Is Conjunctival Pallor Useful in
Detecting Anaemia?
Yahya Atiya
Anaemia
Title
Scenario
Olivia is an 11 year old African girl who presented to paediatric casualty in mid-January
2004 complaining of fever, lethargy and general weakness. A diagnosis of acute
Plasmodium falciparum malaria was made on the basis of a positive travel history to
Malawi and general examination which revealed palmar and mild conjunctival pallor. It
was confirmed by urinalysis, which revealed frank haematuria, and a peripheral blood
smear, which showed parasites in the erythrocytes. Her full blood count revealed a
haemoglobin level of 7.8 g/dl, and a mean cell volume of 75fl. Clearly she is anaemic,
but the question is how reliable is conjunctival pallor in detecting this?
Clinical Question
In children assessed as being anaemic, how reliable is conjunctival pallor in detecting the
anaemia?
Search
Most studies assessed conjunctival pallor in association with other sites of pallor i.e.
palm, nail bed, tongue and buccal mucosa. While this is clinically useful, it does not
answer the question of whether conjunctival pallor alone is sufficient to diagnose
anaemia. This is important because most clinicians rely on it almost exclusively, ignoring
the other sites. As medical students, we find ourselves in a similar situation; we are never
faulted, even in exams, for not checking elsewhere. Weber et al addressed this situation,
and found that conjunctival pallor alone was useful. The only problem is that the ages of
the children are not provided. Hence, is conjunctival pallor useful in older, younger, or all
children?
On the other hand, Kalter et al did not even specify where they checked for pallor, merely
stating that a “standard history & exam incl pallor” was conducted. This raises the
question of how reliable their data really is. It was quite a large study by comparison, but
this subtle mistake brings the validity (or rather reliability) of the validation study under
scrutiny! Further, this and several other studies may have had a selection bias due to the
fact that they were conducted in a hospital setting. This is more than a technical issue
because staff at tertiary institutions tend to be better trained and more skilled than staff at
lower-level institutions.
Spinelli et al found that conjunctival pallor was more sensitive than palmar pallor.
Getaneh et al dispute this, but has no support from any other studies. However, they,
along with Spinelli and others, did assess the inter-observer variation in assessment of
pallor, using kappa values. They found that agreement was best for conjunctival pallor
and lowest for palmar pallor. This suggests, to me, that conjunctival pallor probably is a
better indicator of anaemia.
One thing that all the studies seem to agree upon is that assessment at several sites is
definitely better than assessment at any single site. This again goes back to what was first
stated at the beginning of this review. Another is that severe anaemia, as can be expected,
was easier to detect than mild or moderate anaemia.
Weber, Kalter and Zucker et al assessed pallor in a malaria setting. This is probably not
as important for us as it is for those working in malaria endemic areas, but it is significant
that they felt that in a malarial setting, conjunctival pallor alone is a useful estimate of
anaemia. Zucker et al go so far as to recommend malaria treatment for any child less than
36 months presenting with pallor.
As a practical issue, most studies, including Kalter, Weber, Zucker and Luby et al, found
that clinical examination can be a useful indicator of the status of the child, especially in
resource-poor settings such as much of the rural areas of Southern Africa.
Clinical Bottom Line
References