title: Quality evaluation of four hemoglobin screening methods in a blood donor setting along with their comparative cost analysis in an Indian scenario.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Despite the wide range of methods available for measurement of hemoglobin, no single technique has emerged as the most appropriate and ideal for a blood donation setup.
  
  
  METHODS
  A prospective study utilizing 1014 blood samples was carried out in a blood donation setting for quality evaluation of four methods of hemoglobin estimation along with cost analysis: Hematology cell analyzer (reference), HCS, CuSO4 method and HemoCue.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean value of HemoCue (mean +/- SD = 14.7 +/- 1.49 g/dl) was higher by 0.24 compared to reference (mean +/- SD = 13.8 +/- 1.52 g/dl) but not statistically significant ( P > 0.05). HemoCue proved to be the best technique (sensitivity 99.4% and specificity 84.4%) whereas HCS was most subjective with 25.2% incorrect estimations. CuSO4 proved to be good with 7.9% false results. Comparative cost analysis of each method was calculated to be 35 INR/test for HemoCue, 0.76 INR /test for HCS and 0.06-0.08 INR /test for CuSO4.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  CuSO4 method gives accurate results, if strict quality control is applied. HemoCue is too expensive to be used as a primary screening method in an economically restricted country like India.
authors.affiliation: Department of Transfusion Medicine, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow- 226014, UP, India.
authors.forename: Rashmi
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Tondon
authors.forename: Anupam
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Verma
authors.forename: Prashant
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Pandey
authors.forename: Rajendra
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Chaudhary
references.citation: Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
references.pmid: 2868172
references.citation: Transfus Med. 1994 Sep;4(3):221-5
references.pmid: 7820230
references.citation: Clin Lab Haematol. 2004 Aug;26(4):253-8
references.pmid: 15279661
references.citation: Transfusion. 2003 Mar;43(3):400-4
references.pmid: 12675728
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2000 Dec;53(12):933-7
references.pmid: 11265179
references.citation: Transfus Apher Sci. 2005 Aug;33(1):31-5
references.pmid: 15951241
references.citation: Vox Sang. 1986;50(2):78-80
references.pmid: 3962283
references.citation: Vox Sang. 2001 Jan;80(1):28-33
references.pmid: 11339065
references.citation: Clin Chem. 1986 Mar;32(3):526-9
references.pmid: 3948400
references.citation: Transfus Med Rev. 1995 Apr;9(2):131-44
references.pmid: 7795331
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 1996 Apr;49(4):271-4
references.pmid: 8655699
references.citation: Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(10):813-6
references.pmid: 12471402