• Users Online: 249
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 312-315

Comparison of haemoglobin estimation of blood donors by specific gravity method, HemoCue method and automated haematology cell analyzer


Department of Pathology, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Subhashish Das
Department of Pathology, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aihb.aihb_100_22

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Pre-donation haemoglobin (Hb) screening is among the foremost test done on blood donors to determine whether an individual is fit to donate with the intention of preventing inadvertent donation from an anaemic donor. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of the three common Hb estimation methods, namely, copper sulphate (CuSO4) method, HemoCue photometer and automated cell counter in reporting the Hb levels of blood donors. Materials and Methods: CuSo4 specific gravity method, HemoCue and automated cell analyzer (Sysmex XN-550) were used to determine the Hb levels in blood samples of 500 donors. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the demographic details of the donor. Kappa statistics were used to determine the level of agreement between the three methods of Hb estimation. Results: HemoCue was found to be more sensitive (86.21%), whereas CuSo4 (97.88%) was found to be more specific. Kappa agreement was good between CuSo4 and Sysmex XN-550 (0.703), whereas it was moderate between HemoCue and Sysmex XN-550 (0.458). Conclusions: The CuSO4 method is still viable for Hb estimation among blood donors. Thus, it can be utilised as the primary screening method; however, follow-up testing with HemoCue or automated cell analyzer can be done to minimise unnecessary deferrals and false acceptance.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed118    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded29    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal