Annals of laboratory medicine · 2013
Comparison of the accuracy of noninvasive hemoglobin sensor (NBM-200) and portable hemoglobinometer (HemoCue) with an automated hematology analyzer (LH500) in blood donor screening.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Moon Jung, Park Quehn, Kim Myung Hee, Shin Jeong Won, Kim Hyun Ok
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Hb levels of prospective blood donors are usually determined using a finger prick test. A new noninvasive Hb device has the advantage of not causing any sampling pain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the noninvasive Hb sensor and to compare its measurements with those of a currently used portable hemoglobinometer.
METHODS: Hb was measured using a noninvasive Hb sensor (NBM-200; OrSense, Israel), a portable hemoglobinometer (HemoCue; HemoCue AB, Sweden), and an automated hematology analyzer (LH500; Beckman Coulter, USA). The correlations between Hb measurements taken by the NBM-200 and HemoCue with those by an automated hematology analyzer were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Hb measurements were compared among 3 different Hb level groups.
RESULTS: The mean Hb values of 506 blood donors were 14.1 g/dL by the NBM-200, 14.0 g/dL by the LH500, and 14.3 g/dL by the HemoCue. The correlation between the LH500 and the NBM-200 was substantial (ICC=0.69), while that between the LH500 and the HemoCue agreed almost perfectly (ICC=0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: The possibility to judge to be eligible for donors who are ineligible to donate was substantial when using NBM-200. Even though the NBM-200 has the apparent advantage of noninvasiveness, its use in pre-screening should be given meticulous attention. Since pre-donation testing is crucial to protecting donors' health, complete evaluation of the instrument should be performed prior to use.
METHODS: Hb was measured using a noninvasive Hb sensor (NBM-200; OrSense, Israel), a portable hemoglobinometer (HemoCue; HemoCue AB, Sweden), and an automated hematology analyzer (LH500; Beckman Coulter, USA). The correlations between Hb measurements taken by the NBM-200 and HemoCue with those by an automated hematology analyzer were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Hb measurements were compared among 3 different Hb level groups.
RESULTS: The mean Hb values of 506 blood donors were 14.1 g/dL by the NBM-200, 14.0 g/dL by the LH500, and 14.3 g/dL by the HemoCue. The correlation between the LH500 and the NBM-200 was substantial (ICC=0.69), while that between the LH500 and the HemoCue agreed almost perfectly (ICC=0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: The possibility to judge to be eligible for donors who are ineligible to donate was substantial when using NBM-200. Even though the NBM-200 has the apparent advantage of noninvasiveness, its use in pre-screening should be given meticulous attention. Since pre-donation testing is crucial to protecting donors' health, complete evaluation of the instrument should be performed prior to use.