Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28965875›Full record

SynthesisEBioMedicine2017

How Long can we Store Blood Samples: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dong-Wen Wu, Yu-Meng Li, Fen Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in EBioMedicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dong-Wen WuThird Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. Electronic address: 2204120613@csu.edu.cn.
Yu-Meng LiThird Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Fen WangThird Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Third Xiangya Hospital · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effect of storage time and temperature on complete blood count (CBC) and comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) testing.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science (WOS), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang databases and SinoMed databases were searched up to May 2017. Clinical trials with adult whole blood samples were identified. Paired reviewers independently screened, extracted data and evaluated the quality of evidence (MINORS tool). Analyses were conducted using Revman 5.3 and Stata 14.0.

resultsA total of 89 studies were confirmed. For CBC, except MPV, most parameters were stable at least for 24h. Some indices, such as WBC, PLt, HCT, HGB and MCH were stable up to 3 d. However, stable CMP test results could only be acquired within 12h. at 4°C, including GLU, AST, ALT, Na, ALB, Cl, DBIL, TC, TG and ALP. Values were less stable when stored at RT.

conclusionsSpecimens stored >12h. for CMP may generate unreliable results. For CBC, samples could reliably be stored for 24h. For longer storage, refrigeration (at 4°C) would be a better choice.

Indexed as

AdultBlood Cell CountBlood Specimen CollectionFemaleHumansMaleTemperatureBlood sample storageComplete blood count (CBC)Comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) testingMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID28965875
PMCPMC5652294
OpenAlexW2760736571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.