ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2026
Evaluation of Different Methods of Haemoglobin Estimation Among Malaria-Infected Patients.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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
backgroundHaemoglobin (Hb) estimation is essential for assessing anaemia, particularly in malaria-endemic settings. Automated Full Blood Count (FBC) analysers, cyanmethemoglobin spectrophotometry, and portable Hb meters are commonly used, but differences in analytical performance may affect measurements.
methodsThis cross-sectional study compared Hb measurements obtained using an automated FBC analyser, the cyanmethemoglobin method, and a portable Hb meter among 100 malaria-infected patients aged 16-65 years at Kumasi South Hospital, Ghana. Measurements were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland-Altman analysis, percentage error, and Passing-Bablok regression.
resultsThe three methods showed very strong correlations (r = 0.955-0.992, p < 0.001), excellent ICC (single measures = 0.969; average measures = 0.990), and high concordance (CCC = 0.95-0.99). Mean biases were -0.06 g/dL for FBC analyser versus portable Hb meter, -0.25 g/dL for FBC analyser versus cyanmethemoglobin, and -0.20 g/dL for portable Hb meter versus cyanmethemoglobin. The corresponding 95% limits of agreement were -0.59 to 0.47, -1.48 to 0.98, and -1.35 to 0.95 g/dL, respectively. Passing-Bablok slopes were 1.00 for all comparisons. The FBC analyser and portable Hb meter showed the closest agreement.
conclusionThe three methods demonstrated good agreement and broadly comparable Hb measurements. The findings support the practical use of portable Hb meters where point-of-care testing is required, while recognising that agreement does not establish diagnostic accuracy or analytical validation.
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.