Volume 71, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645


We have evaluated the accuracy of a simple and inexpensive photometric device (DHT) for the estimation of the blood concentration of hemoglobin by comparison with an automated, high-resolution, flow cytometry-based hematology analyzer (CellDyn 3000) and a centrifugal quantitative buffy coat hematology system (QBC I). We have analyzed the hemoglobin values of 163 individual blood samples. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the methods agreed only poorly: mean differences were 1.0 g/dL with limits of agreement (LOA) of −1.2 g/dL to 3.2 g/dL for the comparison of DHT and CellDyn measurements, 0.5 g/dL with LOA of -2.0 g/dL to 3.0 g/dL for the comparison of DHT with QBC measurements, and 0.5 g/dL with LOA of −1.1 g/dL to 2.1 g/dL for the comparison of QBC with CellDyn measurements. We conclude that the poor agreement of the DHT with the CellDyn does not permit the use of the DHT for critical hemoglobin measurements, particularly in transfusion services.


Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Rendell M, Anderson E, Schlueter W, Mailliard J, Honigs D, Rosenthal R, 2003. Determination of hemoglobin levels in the finger using near infrared spectroscopy. Clin Lab Haematol 25 : 93–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cheesbrough M, 2000. DHT Haeomoglobinometer. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 303–304.
  3. Bentley SA, Johnson A, Bishop CA, 1993. A parallel evaluation of four automated hematology analyzers. Am J Clin Pathol 100 : 626–632.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Wardlaw SC, Levine RA, 1983. Quantitative buffy coat analysis. A new laboratory tool functioning as a screening complete blood cell count. JAMA 249 : 617–620.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bland JM, Altman DG, 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1 : 307–310.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Received : 31 Mar 2004
  • Accepted : 28 May 2004
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error