Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33341984›Full record

Trial reportTransfusion medicine (Oxford, England)2021

Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study.

Steven Bell, Michael Sweeting, Anna Ramond, Ryan Chung, Stephen Kaptoge, Matthew Walker, Thomas Bolton, Jennifer Sambrook, Carmel Moore, Amy McMahon and 11 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Postpartum anemia and maternal wellbeing: A cohort analysis of the WOMAN-2 trial.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

21 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Steven BellDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6774-3149
Michael SweetingDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0980-8965
Anna RamondDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-3693
Ryan ChungDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Stephen KaptogeDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew WalkerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Thomas BoltonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jennifer SambrookNHS Blood and Transplant, London, Oxford, Cambridge, UK.
Carmel MooreDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Amy McMahonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah FahleDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4359-9952
Donna CullenNHS Blood and Transplant, London, Oxford, Cambridge, UK.
Susan MehennyNHS Blood and Transplant, London, Oxford, Cambridge, UK.
Angela M WoodDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7937-304X
Jane ArmitageNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8691-9226
Willem H OuwehandDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7744-1790
Gail MiflinNHS Blood and Transplant, London, Oxford, Cambridge, UK.
David J RobertsNHS Blood and Transplant, London, Oxford, Cambridge, UK.
John DaneshDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Emanuele Di AngelantonioDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8776-6719
COMPARE Study Group
University of Cambridge · GBNHS Blood and Transplant · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilHealth Data Research UKNHSBTNIHR BioResourceNIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Donor Health and Genomics NIHR BTRU-2014-10024NIHR [Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust]UK Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare four haemoglobin measurement methods in whole blood donors.

backgroundTo safeguard donors, blood services measure haemoglobin concentration in advance of each donation. NHS Blood and Transplant's (NHSBT) customary method have been capillary gravimetry (copper sulphate), followed by venous spectrophotometry (HemoCue) for donors failing gravimetry. However, NHSBT's customary method results in 10% of donors being inappropriately bled (ie, with haemoglobin values below the regulatory threshold).

methodsWe compared the following four methods in 21 840 blood donors (aged ≥18 years) recruited from 10 NHSBT centres in England, with the Sysmex XN-2000 haematology analyser, the reference standard: (1) NHSBT's customary method; (2) "post donation" approach, that is, estimating current haemoglobin concentration from that measured by a haematology analyser at a donor's most recent prior donation; (3) "portable haemoglobinometry" (using capillary HemoCue); (4) non-invasive spectrometry (using MBR Haemospect or Orsense NMB200). We assessed sensitivity; specificity; proportion who would have been inappropriately bled, or rejected from donation ("deferred") incorrectly; and test preference.

resultsCompared with the reference standard, the methods ranged in test sensitivity from 17.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 79.0% (portable haemoglobinometry) in men, and from 19.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 82.8% (portable haemoglobinometry) in women. For specificity, the methods ranged from 87.2% (MBR Haemospect) to 99.9% (NHSBT's customary method) in men, and from 74.1% (Orsense NMB200) to 99.8% (NHSBT's customary method) in women. The proportion of donors who would have been inappropriately bled ranged from 2.2% in men for portable haemoglobinometry to 18.9% in women for MBR Haemospect. The proportion of donors who would have been deferred incorrectly with haemoglobin concentration above the minimum threshold ranged from 0.1% in men for NHSBT's customary method to 20.3% in women for OrSense. Most donors preferred non-invasive spectrometry.

conclusionIn the largest study reporting head-to-head comparisons of four methods to measure haemoglobin prior to blood donation, our results support replacement of NHSBT's customary method with portable haemoglobinometry.

Indexed as

Blood DonorsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnemiaBiomarkersCross-Over StudiesDonor SelectionFemaleHemoglobinometryHemoglobinsHumansMaleMiddle AgedReference StandardsBiomarkersHemoglobinsgravimetryhaemoglobin screeningHemoCueinappropriate bleedinginappropriate deferralnon-invasive haemoglobin measurementwhole blood donor

Identifiers

PMID33341984
PMCPMC8048787
OpenAlexW3116770292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.