Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Non-invasive vs biological blood determination of haemoglobinemia for perioperative management: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Pooled result · Haemoglobin, non-invasive vs invasiveResult — go to the resultMD 0.13 g.dL-1 95% CI 0.10–0.36Authors' conclusion
The results obtained support the reliability of pulsed co-oximetry.
Study context
- Population
- Perioperative patients; studies comparing non-invasive Hb measurement with invasive methods, January 2000 to February 2024
- Participants
- 1,888 patients · 36 studies
- Comparison
- Non-invasive pulsed co-oximetry vs invasive biological Hb determination
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy: MD in haemoglobin between non-invasive and invasive methods
Methodological detailsrandom-effects model, inverse variance method, sensitivity analyses, PRISMA, QUADAS-2 risk of bias
- Random-effects model
- Inverse variance method
- Sensitivity analyses
- PRISMA
- QUADAS-2 risk of bias
Pooled result
Haemoglobin, non-invasive vs invasive
MD
0.13 g.dL-1
95% CI 0.10–0.36
P > 0.05
Non-invasive vs Invasive
MD 0.13 g.dL-1 (95% CI 0.10–0.36); P > 0.05
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
Sensitivity analyses (sampling site, sensor revision, location, risk of bias, population, study type)
- No statistically significant difference between the two methods
Trending analysis
- Acceptable in a majority of the studies
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Non-invasive vs biological blood determination of haemoglobinemia for perioperative management: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 30 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →