ArticlePhysiological reports2018
Determination of hemoglobin mass in humans by measurement of CO uptake during inhalation of a CO-air mixture: a proof of concept study.
Article in Physiological reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A simple and novel equation to estimate the degree of bleeding in haemorrhagic shock: mathematical derivation and preliminaryThe Korean journal of physiology & pharmacology : official journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology · 2022Article
- Determination of hemoglobin mass in humans by measurement of CO uptake during inhalation of a CO-air mixture: a proof of concept study.Physiological reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring hemoglobin mass (Hbmass) using the carbon monoxide (CO) bolus rebreathing method is frequently used in research but has yet to be widely used in the clinical practice. The estimation of an adequate CO bolus may be difficult in patients with unknown Hbmass. In the present pilot study, a progressive inhalation technique for CO that leads to a linear individual adjusted COHb increase was evaluated. Sixteen healthy test subjects participated in the study (preliminary investigation: six; main study: ten). The reliability and validity of the new method were evaluated using multiple measurements of Hbmass with and without a defined blood donation and compared to a CO bolus method. The participants inhaled a CO-air mixture (CO concentration: 1500 ppm) for a specific breathing duration. The CO uptake and COHb change were determined simultaneously. The typical error (reliability) in the repeated measurements was 2.4% (CI ± 4.7). The mean difference between the new method and the bolus method was 34 g (±41; P = 0.026). The measured hemoglobin loss in 490 mL of blood was 74 g (±35), and the calculated hemoglobin loss was 77 g (±4) (mean difference 3 g ± 34; P = 0.820). The new method was reliable and valid in a proof of concept study with healthy subjects. The total amount of CO and as a result the COHb increase is individually adjustable. Future studies in clinical settings are needed to determine if the method could be used in disease-specific pathologies associated with changes in Hbmass.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.