Asian journal of transfusion science · 2009
Quality evaluation of four hemoglobin screening methods in a blood donor setting along with their comparative cost analysis in an Indian scenario.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Tondon Rashmi, Verma Anupam, Pandey Prashant, Chaudhary Rajendra
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite the wide range of methods available for measurement of hemoglobin, no single technique has emerged as the most appropriate and ideal for a blood donation setup.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study utilizing 1014 blood samples was carried out in a blood donation setting for quality evaluation of four methods of hemoglobin estimation along with cost analysis: Hematology cell analyzer (reference), HCS, CuSO4 method and HemoCue.
RESULTS: Mean value of HemoCue (mean +/- SD = 14.7 +/- 1.49 g/dl) was higher by 0.24 compared to reference (mean +/- SD = 13.8 +/- 1.52 g/dl) but not statistically significant ( P > 0.05). HemoCue proved to be the best technique (sensitivity 99.4% and specificity 84.4%) whereas HCS was most subjective with 25.2% incorrect estimations. CuSO4 proved to be good with 7.9% false results. Comparative cost analysis of each method was calculated to be 35 INR/test for HemoCue, 0.76 INR /test for HCS and 0.06-0.08 INR /test for CuSO4.
CONCLUSION: CuSO4 method gives accurate results, if strict quality control is applied. HemoCue is too expensive to be used as a primary screening method in an economically restricted country like India.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study utilizing 1014 blood samples was carried out in a blood donation setting for quality evaluation of four methods of hemoglobin estimation along with cost analysis: Hematology cell analyzer (reference), HCS, CuSO4 method and HemoCue.
RESULTS: Mean value of HemoCue (mean +/- SD = 14.7 +/- 1.49 g/dl) was higher by 0.24 compared to reference (mean +/- SD = 13.8 +/- 1.52 g/dl) but not statistically significant ( P > 0.05). HemoCue proved to be the best technique (sensitivity 99.4% and specificity 84.4%) whereas HCS was most subjective with 25.2% incorrect estimations. CuSO4 proved to be good with 7.9% false results. Comparative cost analysis of each method was calculated to be 35 INR/test for HemoCue, 0.76 INR /test for HCS and 0.06-0.08 INR /test for CuSO4.
CONCLUSION: CuSO4 method gives accurate results, if strict quality control is applied. HemoCue is too expensive to be used as a primary screening method in an economically restricted country like India.