Evaluation of three methods for hemoglobin measurement in a blood donor setting.

49Citations
Citations of this article
58Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

CONTEXT: The hemoglobin (Hb) level is the most-used parameter for screening blood donors for the presence of anemia, one of the most-used methods for measuring Hb levels is based on photometric detection of cyanmetahemoglobin, as an alternative to this technology, HemoCue has developed a photometric method based on the determination of azide metahemoglobin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of three methods for hemoglobin (Hb) determination in a blood bank setting. DESIGN: Prospective study utilizing blood samples to compare methods for Hb determination. SETTING: Hemotherapy Service of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, a private institution in the tertiary health care system. SAMPLE: Serial blood samples were collected from 259 individuals during the period from March to June 1996. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Test performances and their comparisons were assessed by the analysis of coefficients of variation (CV), linear regression and mean differences. RESULTS: The CV for the three methods were: Coulter 0.68%, Cobas 0.82% and HemoCue 0.69%. There was no difference between the mean Hb determination for the three methods (p>0.05). The Coulter and Cobas methods showed the best agreement and the HemoCue method gave a lower Hb determination when compared to both the Coulter and Cobas methods. However, pairs of methods involving the HemoCue seem to have narrower limits of agreement (+/- 0.78 and +/- 1.02) than the Coulter and Cobas combination (+/- 1.13). CONCLUSION: The three methods provide good agreement for hemoglobin determination.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rosenblit, J., Abreu, C. R., Szterling, L. N., Kutner, J. M., Hamerschlak, N., Frutuoso, P., … Ferreira, O. C. (1999). Evaluation of three methods for hemoglobin measurement in a blood donor setting. São Paulo Medical Journal = Revista Paulista de Medicina, 117(3), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31801999000300003

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free