ArticleBMC research notes2018
Specimen rejections among referred specimens through referral network to the Amhara Public Health Institute for laboratory testing, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends and determinants of laboratory specimen rejection rates at Debre Markos comprehensive specialized hospital in Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Laboratory specimen rejection rate and associated factors among referred specimens at Debre Markos Referral Hospital, Ethiopia: prospective cross-sectional study.The Pan African medical journal · 2024Article
- Quality Control Circle Practices to Reduce Specimen Rejection Rates.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Blood specimen rejection rate in clinical laboratory: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Practical laboratory medicine · 2023Review
- The Role of GeneXpert MTB/RIF in Reducing Treatment Delay Among Multidrug Resistance Tuberculosis Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Extra-Analytical Clinical Laboratory Errors in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.EJIFCC · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the magnitude, trend and reasons of rejection among referred specimens through referral network to the Amhara Public Health Institute (APHI) for laboratory testing.
resultsA total of 42,923 specimens were received at APHI reference laboratories. Of which, 221 (0.5%) specimens were rejected. CD4, HIV viral load, genexpert and EID specimens' rejection rates were 0.7%, 0.6%, 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively. CD4 specimens were rejected due to wrong package (84.2%) and presence of clots (15.8%). Un-centrifuge (46.9%), hemolysis (19.8%) and use of wrong tube (17.7%) were the main rejection reasons for HIV viral load specimens. Although viral load specimen rejection was improved from 1.8 to 0% up to February/2018, the problem was reoccurred and continued to the end of May (1.3%) and June (0.3%) 2018. Moreover, CD4 specimen rejection (4.3%) was out of the established target in May, and exposed infant diagnosis (EID) specimen rejection became increased since March 2018. Hence, appropriate corrective and preventive actions and close follow up could reduce the problem of specimen referral network.
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.