Comparison of the Accuracy of Noninvasive Hemoglobin Sensor (NBM-200) and Portable Hemoglobinometer (HemoCue) with an Automated Hematology Analyzer (LH500) in Blood Donor Screening

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 o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAnnals of laboratory medicine Vol. 33; no. 4; pp. 261 - 267
Main Authors Kim, Moon Jung, Park, Quehn, Kim, Myung Hee, Shin, Jeong Won, Kim, Hyun Ok
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Korea (South) The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine 01.07.2013
대한진단검사의학회
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2234-3806
2234-3814
2234-3814
DOI10.3343/alm.2013.33.4.261

Cover

More Information
Summary: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. 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. 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). 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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
G704-000327.2013.33.4.008
ISSN:2234-3806
2234-3814
2234-3814
DOI:10.3343/alm.2013.33.4.261