Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): a diagnostic accuracy study
Angela M. Wood,
Willem H Ouwehand,
Dave J Roberts,
Emanuele Di Angelantonio,
on behalf of the COMPARE Study Group
Posted 08 Nov 2020
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2020.11.06.20226779
Posted 08 Nov 2020
ObjectiveTo compare four haemoglobin measurement methods in whole blood donors. BackgroundTo safeguard donors, blood services measure haemoglobin concentration in advance of each donation. NHS Blood and Transplants (NHSBT) usual method has been capillary gravimetry (copper sulphate), followed by venous HemoCue(R) (spectrophotometry) for donors failing gravimetry. However, gravimetry/venous HemoCue(R) results in 10% of donors being inappropriately bled (i.e., with haemoglobin values below the regulatory threshold). MethodsThe following were compared in 21,840 blood donors (aged [≥]18 years) recruited from 10 mobile centres of NHSBT in England, with each method compared with the Sysmex XN-2000 haematology analyser, the reference standard: 1) gravimetry/venous HemoCue(R); 2) "post donation" approach, i.e., estimating current haemoglobin concentration from that measured by a haematology analyser at a donors most recent prior donation; 3) capillary HemoCue(R); and 4) non-invasive spectrometry (MBR Haemospect(R) or Orsense NMB200(R)). We assessed each method for sensitivity; specificity; proportion of donors who would have been inappropriately bled, or rejected from donation ("deferred") incorrectly; and test preference. ResultsCompared with the reference standard, the methods ranged in test sensitivity from 17.0% (MBR Haemospect(R)) to 79.0% (HemoCue(R)) in men, and from 19.0% (MBR Haemospect(R)) to 82.8% (HemoCue(R)) in women. For specificity, the methods ranged from 87.2% (MBR Haemospect(R)) to 99.9% (gravimetry/venous HemoCue(R)) in men, and from 74.1% (Orsense NMB200(R)) to 99.8% (gravimetry/venous HemoCue(R)) in women. The proportion of donors who would have been inappropriately bled ranged from 2.2% in men for HemoCue(R) to 18.9% in women for MBR Haemospect(R). The proportion of donors who would have been deferred incorrectly with haemoglobin concentration above the minimum threshold ranged from 0.1% in men for gravimetry/venous HemoCue(R) to 20.3% in women for OrSense(R). Most donors preferred non-invasive spectrometry. ConclusionIn the largest study reporting head-to-head comparisons of four methods to measure haemoglobin prior to blood donation, our results support replacement of venous HemoCue(R) with the capillary HemoCue(R) when donors fail gravimetry. These results have had direct translational implications for NHS Blood and Transplant in England.
- Downloaded 256 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 90,075
- In hematology: 56
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 13,513
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 12,239
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!