ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Clinical Bedside Benchmarking Test for Measuring the Total Hemoglobin Concentration.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAccurate total hemoglobin concentration (ctHb) measurement is critical for clinical decision-making, particularly in acute care, where immediate therapeutic decisions are required. This study evaluated previously established laboratory-based accuracy criteria for ctHb measurements in routine clinical practice at an interdisciplinary operative intensive care unit (IO-ICU), and with particular attention to significantly reduced hemoglobin concentrations.
methodRemaining blood from blood gas analysis (BGA) cuvettes was collected directly at the ICU bedside. From these initial samples, three clinically relevant measurement scenarios were established: direct bedside measurement (Group 01), elevated ctHb levels (Group 02), and lowered ctHb concentrations below 9 g/dl (Group 03). The samples were analyzed using the GEM 4000, GEM 5000 (Werfen GmbH, Muenchen, Germany), ABL90 Flex plus (Radiometer GmbH, Krefeld, Germany), HemoCue Hb 201+, and XN 9000/9100 (Sysmex Deutschland GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) automatic hematology analyzers. Since each measurement device inherently possesses systematic deviations, no single analyzer was defined as an absolute reference. Instead, the mean value across all tested measurement systems was utilized as a best-fit reference (REF) value.
resultsA total of 120 data pairs from 40 ICU patients were analyzed using regression analyses, Bland and Altman (B&A) methods, and tolerance level analysis (TLA). The results demonstrated strong concordance among the evaluated measurement devices across the examined ctHb spectrum (~1-18 g/dL). Moderate systematic deviations identified by B&A analysis were most pronounced at critically low ctHb levels (<6 g/dL). A key outcome was the determination of 95% prediction intervals (PIs), representing a quantifiable range of uncertainties for future bedside measurements. The PIs for Group 03 "low" were in the range of ±7% (relative difference) or ±0.38 g/dL (absolute difference).
conclusionThis study effectively translates previous laboratory findings into clinical practice, highlighting the practical utility of PIs to guide the accurate interpretation of bedside ctHb measurements under acute care conditions.
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.