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

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsHb 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

Assessment of a non-invasive haemoglobin sensor NBM 200 among pregnant women in rural India

“…Our study findings are in agreement with those from a study conducted at a blood centre in Seoul, Korea by Kim et al 13 where the NBM 200 Hb measurements tended to be higher than the LH500 automated haematology analyser estimates (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, California, USA). The sensitivity (38.6%) and specificity (93.6%) analyses were very similar to our study and indicated that NBM 200 failed to detect more than half of the ineligible blood donors.…”

A validation of Hemo_Vet, a portable hemoglobinometer, in dogs

“…Based on the acceptable difference calculated between the two methods for the Hb values, the present results suggest that these methods can be used interchangeably because the mean difference between the Hb values obtained by both methods is within the interval 0 ± 1.54 g/dl. A study with human blood donors showed a similar result, the mean difference between the Hb values obtained by the hemoglobinometer tested and an automated hematology analyzer was very close to zero (KIM et al, 2013). These results are different from those found in another report of a portable hemoglobinometer, in which the findings "were systematically biased and too unreliable", according to Gayat et al (2011).…”

Continuous noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring

“…Although several studies of the NBM devices have been conducted, the results are controversial with wide variations of bias [12,13 && , [14][15][16], especially in patients with active bleeding. It can be seen that a variety of clinical variables have an impact on the accuracy of continuous NIHb monitoring.…”