Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Chem. 2013 Jun 20;59(10):10.1373/clinchem.2013.204701. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.204701

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Comparison of the [Hb] measurements performed using the paper-based Hb assay and the Medonic hematology analyzer (n = 54 subjects). (a) The linear regression analysis of the correlation between the [Hb] values determined by a hematology analyzer (true [Hb]) and by the paper-based Hb assay (estimated [Hb]). The diagonal (red dashed line) represents a 1:1 correspondence between the true and the estimated [Hb] values. (b) Bland & Altman plots of the agreement between the paper-based Hb assay and the hematology analyzer. The solid red line is the average difference between the two methods (mean bias); the dashed red lines are limits of agreement (±2 SD). The mean [Hb] was 11.50 ± 2.86 g/dL for the paper-based Hb assay and 11.43 ± 3.05 g/dL for the Medonic hematology analyzer.