Key result
Total hemoglobin mass estimation using the optimized CO-rebreathing method showed weak agreement between RapidLab and OSM3 spectrophotometers (limits of agreement 11.2%; 95% range -6.8 to +15.6%).
Why the study?
Does the choice of spectrophotometer (RapidLab vs OSM3) affect the estimation of total hemoglobin mass using the optimized CO-rebreathing method?
Population
33-37 subjects undergoing total hemoglobin mass (tHb-mass) estimation
Comparison
Measurement of carboxyhemoglobin fraction using… vs Measurement of %HbCO using OSM3 spectrophotometer
Design
Other
Follow-up
6-month intervals
Authors
Loading...
Device-specific tHb-mass estimates caution against interchange; leaves open standardization needs for anti-doping reliability.
Observational (n=37)
Does the choice of spectrophotometer (RapidLab vs OSM3) affect the estimation of total hemoglobin mass using the optimized CO-rebreathing method?
Effect estimate: Limits of agreement 11.2% (95% CI -6.8 to +15.6%)
The analytical variation in tHb-mass determination with the optimized CO-rebreathing method increases considerably when using different spectrophotometers, necessitating the use of a single standardized device for anti-doping purposes.
Ulrich et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Blood doping detection (n=37). RapidLab spectrophotometer vs. OSM3 spectrophotometer was evaluated on Total hemoglobin mass (tHb-mass) agreement (Limits of agreement 11.2%, 95% CI -6.8 to +15.6%). Total hemoglobin mass estimation using the optimized CO-rebreathing method showed weak agreement between RapidLab and OSM3 spectrophotometers (limits of agreement 11.2%; 95% range -6.8 to +15.6%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: