ArticlePloS one2024
Capillary drops, capillary pooled, and venous blood samples for determining hemoglobin concentration using HemoCue: A measurement system analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several external and internal factors can affect the performance and variability of Hemoglobin concentration [Hb] measurements using HemoCue, and documentation on the contribution of different sources of [Hb] variation is limited. We used an experimental repeated measurements design with nine randomly selected participants, three HemoCue devices, and three trained field workers. HemoCue measurements for all samples were repeated three times. The [Hb] measurement system considers four sources of error: 1) HemoCue devices, 2) field workers, 3) between individuals, and 4) within individuals. A concordance analysis was used to assess accuracy and precision, and a linear mixed model was used to estimate mean differences (bias) from blood specimens, anticoagulants, and to estimate the contribution of the 4 sources of error to [Hb] measurements. Positive mean [Hb] differences were found: 1.34 g/dL for capillary drops, 0.81 g/dL for pooled capillary blood samples, 0.756 g/dL for venous blood stored with EDTA, and 0.911 g/dL for venous blood stored with heparin. The mean [Hb] difference for venous blood with EDTA was used as a correction factor for all results measured using a HemoCue. After adjustment, capillary drops showed a mean difference of 0.585 g/dL, and pooled capillary samples were not significantly different. The individual variability was 95.8% of total variance, HemoCue devices contributed 2.1% of measurement error, field staff contributed 0.4%, and the residual was 1.7%. The HemoCue [Hb] measurement system is reliable in controlled environments, with a small measurement error of 4.2%.
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.