Comparison of the Accuracy of Noninvasive Hemoglobin Sensor (NBM-200) and Portable Hemoglobinometer (HemoCue) with an Automated Hematology Analyzer (LH500) in Blood Donor Screening.
10.3343/alm.2013.33.4.261
- Author:
Moon Jung KIM
1
;
Quehn PARK
;
Myung Hee KIM
;
Jeong Won SHIN
;
Hyun Ok KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Biomedical Laboratory Science, Eulji University College of Health Science, Seongnam, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study
- Keywords:
Blood donors;
Donor selection;
Hemoglobin;
Safety management
- MeSH:
Automation;
Biosensing Techniques/*instrumentation;
Blood Chemical Analysis/*instrumentation;
Blood Donors;
Donor Selection/*methods;
Female;
Hemoglobins/*analysis;
Humans;
Male;
Sensitivity and Specificity
- From:Annals of Laboratory Medicine
2013;33(4):261-267
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
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.
