ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Accuracy of minimally invasive hemoglobin monitoring in the perioperative period: transcutaneous hemoglobin monitoring and point-of-care testing devices: prospective observational study.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the perioperative performance of two minimally/non-invasive hemoglobin monitoring modalities-continuous pulse hemoglobin (SpHb) (Revision O: rev. O) and intermittent point-of-care testing (POCT) using HemoCue® Hb801-against an automated hematology analyzer as the reference standard. Fifty patients undergoing general anesthesia with invasive arterial monitoring for surgery with anticipated blood loss were enrolled prospectively. A total of 281 arterial blood samples were analyzed by an automated hematology analyzer (reference standard), a blood gas analyzer, and HemoCue® Hb801; all comparisons, including HemoCue®, used arterial rather than capillary blood. SpHb (rev. O) was monitored continuously. Correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were performed, and polar plot analysis of changes between successive sampling points assessed SpHb trend-tracking. HemoCue® Hb801 agreed closely with the reference (r = 0.979; bias 0.119 g/dL; limits of agreement [LOA] -0.687 to +0.925 g/dL). SpHb correlated with the reference (r = 0.777) but showed wide LOA (- 2.114 to +2.811 g/dL), proportional bias, and greater random error at perfusion index <1.4 (87/281 measurements, 31.0%). In polar plot analysis of 23 successive-change pairs from 9 patients, angular bias was - 5.8° (95% CI -12.2° to +0.5°) and four-quadrant concordance 100%, but radial limits of agreement (- 36.3° to +24.6°) exceeded the ±30° criterion. HemoCue® Hb801 provided accurate Hb measurement from a minimal arterial sample. SpHb (rev. O) had limited absolute accuracy and could not quantify the magnitude of change within accepted limits, but reliably indicated its direction. A hybrid approach-continuous SpHb monitoring triggering confirmatory HemoCue® measurement-may support safer perioperative hemoglobin management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848108What 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.