ReviewBiochemia medica2014
Interferences from blood collection tube components on clinical chemistry assays.
Review in Biochemia medica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
124 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Toward standardization and a concerted vision for platelet proteomics research: communication from the SSC of the ISTH.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2025Guideline
- Platelet-Rich Plasma as an Alternative to Xenogeneic Sera in Cell-Based Therapies: A Need for Standardization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Guidelines for pre-analytical conditions for assessing the methylation of circulating cell-free DNA.Clinical epigenetics · 2021Pooled it
- The impact of pre-analytical variations on biochemical analytes stability: A systematic review.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Pooled it
- Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Serum Separator Tubes and Transport Systems on Hormone and Tumor Marker Measurements.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of Nano-Hydroxyapatite-Coated PRF on Gingiva-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells: In Vitro Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Development of an immunochromatographic lateral flow assay for the rapid detection of all known orthoebolavirus glycoproteins.Npj viruses · 2026Article
- Preanalytical Quality Evaluation of Low-Volume Citrate Evacuated Blood Collection Tubes-Anticoagulant Solution Volume Accuracy, pH, and Anionic-Cationic Composition.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of serum as an alternative matrix to plasma for NULISA‑based proteomic blood biomarker measurements.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker in Pancreatic Cancer: Clinical Applications and Challenges.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Article
- Blood Matrices and Sample Preparation Influence Blood Marker Discovery.Journal of proteome research · 2026Article
- Article
- On the background of plastics nanoparticles in our research.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of vacuum blood collection tubes in multicenter clinical laboratories: a real-world study from Southwest China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Study on the stability of antipsychotic drugs in clinical samples within serum collection tubes with and without separating gel.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Fluoride-Oxalate and Lithium Heparin Anticoagulant Tubes Are Reliable Alternatives to EDTA for HbA1c Measurement.BioMed research international · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of two different blood collection tubes for hematological and biochemical testing.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Effects of ZnO, MgO, and CaO Nanoparticles in 3D-Printed Chitosan-Agarose Scaffolds on Antibacterial and Osteogenic Outcomes.Macromolecular bioscience · 2025Article
- Plasma vs. serum: which is better for proteomic blood biomarker analysis? Evaluation of the novel NULISA platform.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improper design or use of blood collection devices can adversely affect the accuracy of laboratory test results. Vascular access devices, such as catheters and needles, exert shear forces during blood flow, which creates a predisposition to cell lysis. Components from blood collection tubes, such as stoppers, lubricants, surfactants, and separator gels, can leach into specimens and/or adsorb analytes from a specimen; special tube additives may also alter analyte stability. Because of these interactions with blood specimens, blood collection devices are a potential source of pre-analytical error in laboratory testing. Accurate laboratory testing requires an understanding of the complex interactions between collection devices and blood specimens. Manufacturers, vendors, and clinical laboratorians must consider the pre-analytical challenges in laboratory testing. Although other authors have described the effects of endogenous substances on clinical assay results, the effects/impact of blood collection tube additives and components have not been well systematically described or explained. This review aims to identify and describe blood collection tube additives and their components and the strategies used to minimize their effects on clinical chemistry assays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.