ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of non-invasive hemoglobin measurement in blood donors at a tertiary care hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemoglobin (Hb) assessment is crucial to prevent blood donation from anemic donors. Most measurements are invasive and painful; however, an alternative, non-invasive hemoglobin measurement is available. This study aimed to compare non-invasive and point-of-care invasive hemoglobin test results with those from an automated blood analyzer in blood donors.
methodsQualified blood donors were enrolled at a tertiary care hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. Hemoglobin was initially measured by the non-invasive device (Rad-67 Pulse CO-Oximeter) and a point-of-care invasive hemoglobin screening device (Mission HemoPro). Participants with point-of-care invasive hemoglobin ≥ 12.5 g/dL were eligible to donate, and during donation, standard hemoglobin measurements were obtained using an automated analyzer, XN-550. Those who were ineligible with point-of-care invasive hemoglobin < 12.5 g/dL underwent additional blood sampling for hemoglobin measurement by an automated analyzer. Correlation and agreement between non-invasive, point-of-care, and automated hemoglobin measurements were assessed with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots, while satisfaction was evaluated using a Likert scale.
resultsOf 300 participants, 295 had complete data. Of these, 169 were male (57.28%). Average non-invasive, point-of-care, and automated hemoglobin levels were 14.38 ± 1.12 g/dL, 13.65 ± 0.70 g/dL, and 13.90 ± 1.16 g/dL, respectively. The ICC between non-invasive, point-of-care, and automated hemoglobin measurement was 0.600 (95% CI: 0.522-0.668) and 0.897 (95% CI: 0.872-0.957). The sensitivity of the non-invasive Hb measurement was poor for detecting anemic donors when the Hb cut-off was set at 12.5 g/dL. This method received significantly higher satisfaction than the routinely used invasive device.
conclusionThe non-invasive Hb measurement in blood donors showed moderate agreement with the standard test, but the sensitivity was poor when the cut-off hemoglobin was set at 12.5 g/dl. Since donor satisfaction was higher, this method may be used as an alternative screening tool, provided a higher Hb cut-off value is used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.