Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31162693›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2019

Methods and analyzers for hemoglobin measurement in clinical laboratories and field settings.

Ralph D Whitehead, Zuguo Mei, Carine Mapango, Maria Elena D Jefferds

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 176 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ralph D WhiteheadDivision of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Zuguo MeiDivision of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Carine MapangoDivision of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Maria Elena D JefferdsDivision of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · USNational Center for Environmental Health · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper describes and compares methods and analyzers used to measure hemoglobin (Hb) in clinical laboratories and field settings. We conducted a literature review for methods used to measure Hb in clinical laboratories and field settings. We described methods to measure Hb and factors influencing results. Automated hematology analyzer (AHA) was reference for all Hb comparisons using evaluation criteria of ±7% set by College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). Capillary fingerprick blood usually produces higher Hb concentrations compared with venous blood. Individual drops produced lower concentrations than pooled capillary blood. Compared with the AHA: (1) overall cyanmethemoglobin (1.0-8.0  g/L), WHO Colour Scale (0.5-10.0  g/L), paper-based devices (5.0-7.0  g/L), HemoCue® Hb-201 (1.0-16.0  g/L) and Hb-301 (0.5-6.0  g/L), and Masimo Pronto® (0.3-14.0  g/L) overestimated concentrations; (2) Masimo Radical®-7 both under- and overestimated concentrations (0.3-104.0  g/L); and (3) other methods underestimated concentrations (2.0-16.0  g/L). Most mean concentration comparisons varied less than ±7% of the reference. Hb measurements are influenced by several analytical factors. With few exceptions, mean concentration bias was within ±7%, suggesting acceptable performance. Appropriate, high-quality methods in all settings are necessary to ensure the accuracy of Hb measurements.This paper describes and compares methods and analyzers used to measure hemoglobin (Hb) in clinical laboratories and field settings. With few exceptions, mean concentration bias was within ±7%, suggesting acceptable performance. Appropriate, high-quality methods in all settings are necessary to ensure the accuracy of Hb measurements.

Indexed as

Blood Specimen CollectionHemoglobinometryHemoglobinsHumansHemoglobinsanemiablood collectionclinicalfieldhemoglobinvariability

Identifiers

PMID31162693
PMCPMC6709845
OpenAlexW2948629986

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.