Introduction Anaemia 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.

Methodology A 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.

Results Results 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.

Conclusion The 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.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the office of the Institute of Research, Innovation and Development (IRID) in Kumasi Technical University (KsTU). The samples used in this study were de-identified prior to use in this study. No identifiable features were used in the study.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.