ArticlePhysiological reports2025
A method for determination of hematocrit using the mobile app "HaemoCalc": Validity, reliability, and effect of user expertise.
Article in Physiological reports, 2025. 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.
- Association and Agreement of Contact-Based Smartphone Photoplethysmography Compared With Electrocardiography: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- A method for determination of hematocrit using the mobile app "HaemoCalc": Validity, reliability, and effect of user expertise.Physiological reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated validity, reliability, and effect of user expertise of "HaemoCalc", a mobile phone application for hematocrit (Hct) measurement from fingerpick blood samples, compared to a traditional Hawksley microhaematocrit reader (MHR). Experiment 1 examined the effect pitch angle during image capture exerted on the validity of Hct values. Twenty participants' samples were analyzed at 0°, 10°, and 20° directly over the sample, and 33° with a 10 cm setback. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect of angle on Hct values (p < 0.01). Measurements at 33° pitch differed from other angles and the MHR (p < 0.001, d = 2.31-3.06). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement at 0°, 10°, and 20° (mean differences: -0.4% to 1.0%) but poor agreement at 33° (mean difference: -4.4%, LOA: -0.7% to 8.4%). Experiment 2 assessed inter- and intra-rater reliability of expert and novice users (n = 12). Participants performed three trials each. HaemoCalc and MHR showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.95-1.00). No differences were observed between experts and novices (p = 1.000, d = 0.01-0.39). HaemoCalc is a valid and reliable tool for Hct measurement at small pitch angles and in expert and novice users. The HaemoCalc app offers scalability, repeatability, health and safety benefits, and potential applications in medical education and remote learning.
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.