This paper describes and compares methods and analyzers used to measure
hemoglobin (Hb) in clinical laboratories and field settings. We conducted a
literature review for methods used to measure Hb in clinical laboratories and
field settings. We described methods to measure Hb and factors influencing
results. Automated hematology analyzer (AHA) was reference for all Hb
comparisons using evaluation criteria of ±7% set by College of American
Pathologists (CAP) and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA).
Capillary fingerprick blood usually produces higher Hb concentrations compared
with venous blood. Individual drops produced lower concentrations than pooled
capillary blood. Compared with the AHA: (1) overall cyanmethemoglobin
(1.0–8.0 g/L), WHO Colour Scale (0.5–10.0 g/L), paper-based
devices (5.0–7.0 g/L), HemoCue® Hb-201 (1.0–16.0
g/L) and Hb-301 (0.5–6.0 g/L), and Masimo Pronto®
(0.3–14.0 g/L) overestimated concentrations; (2) Masimo
Radical® −7 both under- and overestimated
concentrations (0.3–104.0 g/L); and (3) other methods underestimated
concentrations (2.0–16.0 g/L). Most mean concentration comparisons varied
less than ±7% of the reference. Hb measurements are influenced by several
analytical factors. With few exceptions, mean concentration bias was within
±7%, suggesting acceptable performance. Appropriate, high-quality methods
in all settings are necessary to ensure the accuracy of Hb measurements.This
paper describes and compares methods and analyzers used to measure hemoglobin
(Hb) in clinical laboratories and field settings. With few exceptions, mean
concentration bias was within ±7%, suggesting acceptable performance.
Appropriate, high-quality methods in all settings are necessary to ensure the
accuracy of Hb measurements.