ArticleBiochemia medica2020
Case report of spuriously low sodium and calcium in a 36-year-old male in primary care.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An unseparated serum specimen for a 36-year-old male was received from primary care. The specimen arrived in the laboratory at Cork University Hospital one day after collection, as documented on the paper request card, and was promptly centrifuged. Analysis was delayed for three days due to operational constraints and serum indices were run at the same time as the biochemical analyses. Results showed a moderately haemolysed specimen with remarkably low concentrations of both sodium (119 mmol/L) and total calcium (1.15 mmol/L), with all other parameters within their appropriate reference intervals (RIs). The complete report was released electronically and both sodium and calcium results were phoned to, and acknowledged by, the requesting general practitioner (GP). Discussion between the medical scientists and clinical biochemist on duty raised the possibility that the specimen was significantly older than initially thought. Further discussion of results with the GP clarified that the documented time of collection corresponded with specimen receipt by the courier, rather than the time of phlebotomy. Thus, the specimen was 7 days old when received in the laboratory and 10 days old when analysed. This case illustrates the dangers of multiple convergent preanalytical errors. Laboratories should be mindful of the stability of analytes in unseparated blood and unusual patterns of results which might suggest a specimen is "old", and that this may coexist with erroneous request information. Any potential adverse effects on patient care were prevented in this case by laboratory vigilance.
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.