Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28643484›Full record

ReviewAnnals of laboratory medicine2017

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189.

Frank Schneider, Caroline Maurer, Richard C Friedberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Pathologica · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Comparative Analysis of Mafura Butter Oils fromPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Frank SchneiderCollege of American Pathologists 15189 Committee, Northfield, IL, USA.
Caroline MaurerCollege of American Pathologists 15189 Program, Northfield, IL, USA. cmaurer@cap.org.
Richard C FriedbergCollege of American Pathologists, Northfield, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) offers a suite of laboratory accreditation programs, including one specific to accreditation to the international organization for standardization (ISO) 15189 standard for quality management specific to medical laboratories. CAP leaders offer an overview of ISO 15189 including its components, internal audits, occurrence management, document control, and risk management. The authors provide a comparison of its own ISO 15189 program, CAP 15189, to the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program. The authors conclude with why laboratories should use ISO 15189.

Indexed as

AccreditationLaboratories, HospitalQuality ControlReference StandardsRisk ManagementCollege of American PathologistsISO 15189Laboratory accreditationQuality management

Identifiers

PMID28643484
PMCPMC5500734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.