The measurement of hemoglobin concentration (Hb) by co-oximetry is an innovative technique that offers efficiency and agility in the processing of information regarding the measurement of Hb obtained through continuous, non-invasive and rapid monitoring. Because of this attribute, it avoids unnecessary exposures of the patient to invasive procedures by allowing a reduction in the number of blood samples for evaluation and other unnecessary therapies. It also helps to make decisions about the need for transfusion and how to handle it. The objective of this study is to compare the performance offered to obtain Hb values between the Masimo Corporation (Irvine, CA, USA) instrument and the standard gold tool (laboratory examination).
The study corresponds to a systematic review followed by meta-analysis, which included fully registered full-text clinical trials published from 1990 to 2018. PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases were investigated. The mean overall difference found between the non-invasive and invasive methods of hemoglobin monitoring was 0.23 (95% CI −0.16, 0.62), that is, it did not present statistical significance (
Although the mean difference between noninvasive measurements of Hb and the gold standard method is small, the co-oximeter can be used as a non-invasive “trend” monitor in detecting unexpected responses at Hb levels.
The measurement of Hb by co-oximetry is an innovative technique that offers efficiency and agility in the processing of information regarding the measurement of Hemoglobin concentration (Hb) obtained through continuous, non-invasive and rapid monitoring. Because of this attribute, it avoids unnecessary exposures of the patient to invasive procedures by allowing a reduction in the number of blood samples for evaluation and other unnecessary therapies. It also helps to make decisions about the need for transfusion and how to handle it. The objective of this study is to compare the performance offered to obtain Hb values between the Masimo Corporation (Irvine, CA, USA) instrument and the standard gold tool (laboratory examination).
The study corresponds to a systematic review followed by meta-analysis, which included fully registered full-text clinical trials published from 1990 to 2018. PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases were investigated. The mean overall difference found between the non-invasive and invasive methods of hemoglobin monitoring was 0.23 (95% CI -0.16, 0.62), that is, it did not present statistical significance (p = 0.250). The results of the analysis of heterogeneity within and between the studies indicated high levels of inconsistency (Q = 461.63, p < 0.0001, I
Although the mean difference between noninvasive measurements of Hb and the gold standard method is small, the co-oximeter can be used as a non-invasive "trend" monitor in detecting unexpected responses at Hb levels.

Papers