ArticleAsian journal of transfusion science
Minimizing the error in the hemoglobin estimation of blood donors as an articulate step toward donors' blood management.
Article in Asian journal of transfusion science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionHemoglobin (Hb) estimation in blood donors is conducted using capillary samples on portable hemoglobinometers, representing measurement methods in practice. The reference standard is conducted using a venous sample on a hematology analyzer, representing the mentor measurement method or the true value. The correction involves the calculation of the secondary adjustment factor (SAF) to mitigate the difference between the two values. MATERIAL AND
methodsA cross-sectional study enrolled 187 blood donors after approval from the institute's ethics committee. On each donor, capillary Hb was performed on the first drop and the second drop of blood using the hemoglobinometer (HCC-1 & 2) and venous Hb using the hemoglobinometer (HC-V) and hematology analyzer (HA-V) consecutively. The secondary adjustment factor was derived from the slope of the regression equation by calculating the ratio of change in HA-V to the corresponding change in HCC -1 & 2.
resultsThe Hb on HCC-1 & 2 was 15.02 ± 1.30 g/dL & 15.03 ± 1.34 g/dL, whereas the Hb on HC-V & HA-V was 15.00 ± 1.24 g/dL & 14.41 ± 1.19 g/dL respectively. No difference in means of Hb between HCC-1 & HCC-2 was observed. The equation to calculate SAF was HA-V = 3.25 + 0.74 × HCC-1 and HA-V= 3.58 + 0.72 × HCC-2 respectively.
conclusionThe study highlights the need for Hb cut-off for blood donors specific for the type of sample, the drop of blood in case of capillary sample and use correction with secondary adjustment to strengthen quality assurance.
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.