Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Aug;1450(1):147-171.
doi: 10.1111/nyas.14124. Epub 2019 Jun 4.

Methods and analyzers for hemoglobin measurement in clinical laboratories and field settings

Ralph D Whitehead Jr  1 , Zuguo Mei  1 , Carine Mapango  2 , Maria Elena D Jefferds  1
Affiliations
Review

Methods and analyzers for hemoglobin measurement in clinical laboratories and field settings

Ralph D Whitehead Jr et al. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: anemia; blood collection; clinical; field; hemoglobin; variability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests

As part of their routine work duties, the authors provide technical assistance to countries in the design, training, implementation, data management, analysis, and dissemination of public health population-based surveys, including collection of Hb and anemia.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
(A) Differences in mean Hb by arterial (A) and capillary (C) blood source compared with venous (V) or cord blood source as the reference* among infants, children, and adult males (M), females (F), and pregnant women (PW). (B) Differences in mean Hb by single drops of capillary (C) blood source compared with pooled capillary blood source as the reference*, right (R) hand compared with left (L) hand as the standard*, and first venous draw compared with second venous draw as the standard* among children and adult males (M) and females (F).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
(A) Differences in mean Hb of the copper sulfate technique (CST) compared with an automated hematology analyzer (AHA) (reference ) by venous (V) source among infants and children and adult males (M), females (F), and pregnant women (PW). (2B) Differences in mean Hb of the cyanmetHb method (CM) compared with an AHA (reference ) by venous (V) source among infants and children and adult males (M) and females (F). (2C) Differences in mean Hb of the WHO Colour Scale and paper- and color-based methods (PCM) compared with an AHA (reference*) by venous (V) source among infants and children and adult males (M), females (F), and pregnant women (PW).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
(A) Differences in mean Hb of the HemoCue Hb-201+ compared with an automated hematology analyzer (AHA) (reference*) by arterial (A), venous (V), cord, and capillary (C) blood source among infants and children and adult males (M), females (F), and pregnant women (PW). (B) Differences in mean Hb of the HemoCue Hb-301 compared with an AHA (reference ) by arterial (A), venous (V), and capillary (C) blood source among adult males (M) and females (F).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Differences in mean Hb of the other invasive point-of-care (IPOC) analyzers and clinical blood gas analyzer (CBGA) compared with an automated hematology analyzer (reference*) by venous (V) and capillary (C) blood source among children and adult males (M) and females (F).
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
(A) Differences in mean Hb of the noninvasive Masimo Radical-7 analyzer compared with an automated hematology analyzer (AHA) (reference ) by arterial (A) and venous (V) blood source among children and adult males (M) and females (F). (B) Differences in mean Hb of the noninvasive Masimo Pronto-7 analyzer compared with an AHA (reference ) venous (V) blood source children and adult males (M) and females (F). (C) Differences in mean Hb of noninvasive OrSense NBM-200 analyzers (NBM) and other noninvasive point-of-care analyzers (Siemens CO-Oximeter (SO) and Mediscan (MS)) compared with an AHA (reference ) by arterial (A), venous (V), and capillary (C) blood source among infants and adult males (M) and females (F).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization (WHO). 2008. Worldwide prevalence of anemia, 1993–2005 In WHO Global Database on Anemia. de Benoist B, McLean E, Egli I & Cogswell M, Eds. Geneva: World Health Organization; Accessed October 25, 2018 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596657_eng.pdf?ua=1.
    1. McLean E, Cogswell M, Egli I, et al. 2009. Worldwide prevalence of anaemia, WHO Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition System, 1993–2005. Public Health Nutr. 12: 444–454. - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization (WHO). Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anaemia and assessment of severity. World Health Organization; 2011. Accessed October 25, 2018 http://www.who.int/vmnis/indicators/haemoglobin.pdf?ua=1.
    1. Kassebaum NJ 2016. GBD 2013 Anemia Collaborators. The global burden of anemia. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North Am. 30: 247–308. - PubMed
    1. Balarajan Y, Ramakrishnan U, Ozaltin E, et al. 2011. Anaemia in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet 378: 2123–2135. - PubMed