Chambers L A, McGuff J M
American Red Cross Blood Services, Northeast Region, Dedham, Massachusetts.
Am J Clin Pathol. 1989 Mar;91(3):309-12. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/91.3.309.
Fifty-nine volunteers were screened, as if for blood donation, with the use of simultaneous fingerstick (FS), earlobe (EL), and venipuncture (VP) samples tested by copper sulfate density and two instruments for rapid assay, Statcrit and HemoCue. The "true" hemoglobin was determined on the venipuncture sample by cyanmethemoglobin assay. Eligibility (pass/fail) was established for each site/result with the use of standard and investigational cut-offs. Results were used to predict the performance of two-method protocols beginning with copper sulfate followed by FS or EL using Statcrit or HemoCue. Individually, the method sensitivities for hemoglobin below cut-off were low (12.5-62.5%) with the use of standard cut-offs. Assuming 5% prevalence of low hemoglobin, two-method protocols would inappropriately pass more than half of those with low hemoglobin, whereas the proportion of deferred donors with adequate "true" hemoglobin ranged widely (2.8-72.3%). For some methods, investigational cut-offs achieved improved sensitivity with no effect on specificity. Despite standard hemoglobin "requirements" for blood donation, the ability of the investigated methods to correctly classify donors is poor and varies considerably with method and protocol. With cut-offs as specified, the standards for FS and EL samples are not equivalent; the EL cut-offs are too low and the method is inherently less sensitive. Standardization may be better achieved by specifying both required hemoglobin and minimum performance for screening methods.
对59名志愿者进行了筛查,就像进行献血筛查一样,同时采集手指血(FS)、耳垂血(EL)和静脉穿刺血(VP)样本,通过硫酸铜密度法以及两种快速检测仪器Statcrit和HemoCue进行检测。通过氰化高铁血红蛋白法测定静脉穿刺样本中的“真实”血红蛋白。使用标准和研究性临界值确定每个检测点/结果的合格情况(通过/未通过)。结果用于预测从硫酸铜法开始,随后使用Statcrit或HemoCue进行手指血或耳垂血检测的两种方法方案的性能。单独来看,使用标准临界值时,低于临界值的血红蛋白检测方法的灵敏度较低(12.5 - 62.5%)。假设血红蛋白水平低的患病率为5%,两种方法方案会不适当地让超过一半血红蛋白水平低的人通过,而“真实”血红蛋白水平充足但被推迟献血的人的比例差异很大(2.8 - 72.3%)。对于某些方法,研究性临界值提高了灵敏度,而对特异性没有影响。尽管有献血的标准血红蛋白“要求”,但所研究方法正确分类献血者的能力很差,并且因方法和方案的不同而有很大差异。按照规定的临界值,手指血和耳垂血样本的标准并不等同;耳垂血的临界值过低,而且该方法本身灵敏度较低。通过规定所需的血红蛋白水平和筛查方法的最低性能,可能会更好地实现标准化。