Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28412284›Full record

Trial reportClinical biochemistry2017

Effects of preanalytical factors on hemoglobin measurement: A comparison of two HemoCue® point-of-care analyzers.

Ralph D Whitehead, Ming Zhang, Maya R Sternberg, Rosemary L Schleicher, Bakary Drammeh, Carine Mapango, Christine M Pfeiffer

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical biochemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Anemia crisis among children in Peru: a scoping review.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ralph D WhiteheadDivision of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Ming ZhangDivision of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Maya R SternbergDivision of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Rosemary L SchleicherDivision of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Bakary DrammehDivision of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Carine MapangoDivision of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Christine M PfeifferDivision of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. Electronic address: CPfeiffer@cdc.gov.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn field studies, hemoglobin (Hb) is often measured using a battery-operated, portable HemoCue® hemoglobinometer.

methodsWe compared the performance of 2 HemoCue® models (Hb-201+ and Hb-301) and investigated effects of preanalytical factors on Hb results by simulating unfavorable field conditions.

resultsThe Hb-301 produced 2.6% higher results compared to the Hb-201+. Hb had to be measured within 1min of filling the Hb-301 cuvette to avoid artificially elevated concentrations (1.3% per min). The Hb-301 cuvettes withstood elevated temperature (37°C) and humidity (72%) for 3weeks, while the Hb-201+ cuvettes degraded within 10min under those conditions. Both cuvette types withstood elevated temperature for 3weeks. Properly-collected venous and capillary blood produced comparable results. Pooled capillary blood produced comparable results to the second and third but not the fourth drop of blood (3.3% lower). Blood could be stored for ≤4days at 10-30°C before Hb-201+ measurement, but only for 1day at 10-23°C before Hb-301 measurement (≤1% change in Hb).

conclusionsHigher Hb results obtained with the Hb-301 may influence the interpretation of anemia prevalence in health surveys. While the Hb-301 performed better in high humidity conditions, the Hb-201+ provided more user flexibility regarding delayed Hb reading.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care TestingAdultAnemiaBlood Chemical AnalysisFemaleHemoglobinsHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsHemoglobinsCapillary bloodElevated temperatureFreeze-thawingHumidityStorage stabilityVenous blood

Identifiers

PMID28412284
PMCPMC5685159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.