ArticleMedicine2020
Costs analysis of a training intervention for the reduction of preanalytical errors in primary care samples.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of performance in preanalytical phase EQA: can laboratories mitigate common pitfalls?Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Frequency and types of pre-analytical errors in a clinical laboratory of a specialized healthcare hospital.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Direct costs of blood drawings with pre-analytical errors in tertiary paediatric hospital care.PloS one · 2023Article
- Frequencies and causes of pre-analytical errors in a tertiary care hospital laboratory in Saudi Arabia.Annals of Saudi medicineObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo perform a cost-error analysis based on a quasi-experimental pre-post study of the preanalytical errors in 2 hospital laboratories. The real cost and theoretical cost are defined as the cost resulting from errors with or without the training intervention. The real impact associated to the training program was estimated, calculated as the total associated to the preanalytical errors cost difference. The costs were measured using Andalusian Public Health Service fees. Cost analysis of an educational intervention presented in a previous study from 2017. Preanalytical errors were detected in the laboratories of the University Hospital Virgen de la Victoria (Málaga, Spain) and in the University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez (Huelva, Spain).
methodsThe founded errors were divided into blood and urine samples. Univariate sensitivity analysis was used to assess how parameter uncertainty impacted on overall results. Variations of parameters between 0% and 5% were substituted into the base case.
resultsThe real impact associated with educational intervention in LAB1 was an increase of &OV0556;16,961.378, and the expected impact was an increase &OV0556;78,745.27 (difference of &OV0556;61,783.9). In LAB2, the real impact in the same period amounted to &OV0556;260,195.37, and the expected impact was &OV0556;193,905.83 (difference of -&OV0556;66,289.54). The results were different in the 2 laboratories, proving the intervention in only one of them to be more effective.
conclusionsCosts analysis determined that this training intervention can provide saves in the costs, as the effectiveness of the educational sessions in reducing preanalytical errors currently results in a significant decrease of the costs associated with these errors.
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.