ArticleCureus2026
Accuracy of Noninvasive Hemoglobin and Venous Blood Gas Hemoglobin Measurements in Comparison With the Laboratory Method in an Intensive Care Unit.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Rapid and accurate hemoglobin (Hb) measurement is crucial in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients for timely management of anemia and transfusion decisions. Noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring (SpHb) offers continuous assessment, while venous blood gas hemoglobin (VBGHb) provides point-of-care measurement. This study aimed to evaluate the absolute and trend accuracy of SpHb and VBGHb compared to standard laboratory hemoglobin (LabHb) in ICU patients. Methods Twenty patients in the ICU were enrolled. Hemoglobin was measured using SpHb, VBGHb, and LabHb. Absolute accuracy was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, and correlation between methods was evaluated with Pearson correlation. Trend accuracy was assessed with modified Bland-Altman plots. Results A total of 79 samples were collected. SpHb demonstrated a mean bias of -0.0557 gm/dL (95% limits of agreement: -0.5614 to 0.4499) relative to LabHb, while VBGHb showed a larger bias of -0.4734 gm/dL (-2.8312 to 1.8844). SpHb had a strong correlation with LabHb (r = 0.978, p < 0.001), whereas VBGHb showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.506, p < 0.001). Trend analysis revealed a mean trend bias of -0.0102 gm/dL for SpHb (limits -0.6317 to 0.6113), compared with 0.0136 gm/dL for VBGHb (-3.5733 to 3.5461). Conclusions We concluded that SpHb demonstrated acceptable absolute and trend accuracy, as well as excellent correlation with LabHb, providing an easy, feasible, and accurate solution for Hb measurement in the ICU. Future studies should assess its impact on transfusion practices and patient outcomes.
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.