Point-of-care hemoglobin meters show high sensitivity but lower specificity versus analyzer in Ghanaian study

IntroductionAnaemia is one of the most prevalent global public health challenges, particularly among women of reproductive age and children. According to the World Health Organization, anaemia is defined as a hemoglobin concentration below 13.0 g/dL in adult men, 12.0 g/dL in non-pregnant women, and 11.0 g/dL in pregnant women. Hemoglobin measurement therefore plays a critical role in diagnosis, classification, and monitoring of anaemia at both clinical and public health levels. Hemoglobin estimation allows early identification and intervention in at-risk populations. MethodologyA cross-sectional study was conducted at Aniniwaa Medical Centre, Kumasi, involving 100 participants who visited the laboratory for a complete blood count. Venous blood samples were collected aseptically into EDTA tubes and analysed first with the fully automated analyser, followed by the two Hb meters. Data were analysed using Chi-square tests, Bland-Altman plots, and descriptive statistics. ResultsResults showed that the prevalence of anaemia varied across methods: 28% by the analyser, 60% by Urit, and 64% by Mission. Both meters demonstrated 100% sensitivity but lower specificities (55.6% for Urit and 50.0% for Mission). Bland-Altman analysis indicated negative biases (Urit = -1.665 g/dL; Mission = -1.55 g/dL), suggesting both underestimated hemoglobin values compared to the reference. ConclusionThe study revealed that while Hb meters offer convenience and portability for field screening, the fully automated analyser remains more accurate and reliable for diagnosing anaemia in clinical settings.