Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26981016›Full record

ReviewBiochemia medica2016

Phlebotomy, a bridge between laboratory and patient.

Cristiano Ialongo, Sergio Bernardini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biochemia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Unlocking the Value of White Blood Cells for Heart Failure Diagnosis.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2021
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cristiano IalongoLaboratory Medicine Department, "Tor Vergata" University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Sergio BernardiniLaboratory Medicine Department, "Tor Vergata" University Hospital, Rome, Italy; Experimental Medicine and Surgery Department, "Tor Vergata" University, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evidence-based paradigm has changed and evolved medical practice. Phlebotomy, which dates back to the age of ancient Greece, has gained experience through the evolution of medicine becoming a fundamental diagnostic tool. Nowadays it connects the patient with the clinical laboratory dimension building up a bridge. However, more often there is a gap between laboratory and phlebotomist that causes misunderstandings and burdens on patient safety. Therefore, the scope of this review is delivering a view of modern phlebotomy to "bridge" patient and laboratory. In this regard the paper describes devices, tools and procedures in the light of the most recent scientific findings, also discussing their impact on both quality of blood testing and patient safety. It also addresses the issues concerning medical aspect of venipuncture, like the practical approach to the superficial veins anatomy, as well as the management of the patient's compliance with the blood draw. Thereby, the clinical, technical and practical issues are treated with the same relevance throughout the entire paper.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsForearmHematologyHumansLaboratoriesPatient SafetyPhlebotomyQuality ControlVeinsevidence based medicinelaboratory testingpatient safetyphlebotomypreanalytical phasepreanalytical variabilityvenipuncture

Identifiers

PMID26981016
PMCPMC4783087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.