Back

Performance of Hb HemoCue machine compared to automated hematology analyzer for hemoglobin measurements among adult patients at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre

Kassam, N. A.; Mwanga, G. A.; Yusuph, E. L.; Maundi, E. M.; Josephat, M.; Kulaya, N. B.; Lasway, D. B.; Lotha, Z. L.; Ndossy, G. G.; Kimaro, J. S.; Ndaro, A.

2024-12-08 hematology
10.1101/2024.12.07.24318646 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAutomated hematology analyzers offer precise hemoglobin measurements, but are expensive and impractical for field, point of care, primary care and remote settings use. The portable and cost-effective Hemocue device provides an alternative. Comparing their accuracies is crucial to prevent diagnostic discrepancies and misdiagnoses. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of Hb HemoCue machine by comparing its performance to automated analyzer at KCMC clinical laboratory where both equipment are used. MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre (KCMC) Clinical Laboratory among adult patients whose hemoglobin concentrations were measured in May to June 2024. Hemoglobin levels were estimated using two distinct methods: the Hb HemoCue machine and repeatedly tested using an automated hematology analyzer. ResultsHemoglobin (Hb) concentration values obtained from the HemoCue machine and the automated analyzer, had a mean difference of 0.001 g/dl (95% Cl: -0.036 to 0.038), t value of 0.062, and a p-value of 0.95, indicating a non-statistically significant differences between the two measurement methods. The Bland-Altman plot analysis indicated that the mean difference (bias) between the two methods was 0.0012 g/dL, and the limits of agreement ranged from - 0.481 to 0.482 g/dL, suggesting that the HemoCue machine tends to slightly overestimate Hb values compared to the automated hematology analyzer. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the Hb concentrations measured using HemoCue and automated analyzer was 0.995, indicating a very strong positive correlation. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve showed that the area under the curve (AUC) for analyzer and HemoCue was 1.000 indicating that both methods have good diagnostic accuracy of measuring Hb concentrations. ConclusionThe study revealed strong agreement between HemoCue and automated hematology analyzer for measuring hemoglobin concentrations. Both methods demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy suitable for clinical use. Although HemoCue slightly overestimated hemoglobin, this difference was deemed insignificant. The study endorses HemoCue as a reliable tool for hemoglobin concentration measurement alongside automated analyzers.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
22.9%
2
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
3
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.3%
4
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
5
Physiological Reports
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.0%
7
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
8
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
9
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
10
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.7%
12
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
13
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
Biosensors and Bioelectronics
52 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
15
British Journal of Haematology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
16
Journal of Proteome Research
215 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.8%
19
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
21
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
23
Cytometry Part A
30 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
24
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
25
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%