ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
Impact of COVID-19 on the pre and post analytical clinical laboratory testing processes- A performance evaluation study using six sigma.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. 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
backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the total testing process using six sigma metrics based on a comparison of pre and during pandemic periods. MATERIAL &
methodsThe study duration was over 12 months, 6 months before and 6 months after the COVID-19 onset in Pakistan in March 2020 after the recognition of the first case, using quality indicators (QIs). QIs were chosen from a model of QIs recommended by the CAP. Analysis was performed using Six Sigma calculators and QIs were expressed in percentage (%) and Sigma value were computed. Three levels of performance quality i.e. 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile were derived, being best, common and worst performance respectively. Between-group differences were tested using the Mann-Whitney's
resultsThe median defect percentages of these QIs ranged from 0% to 0.27% for the pre-pandemic period and 0% to 0.13% for the during pandemic period. Meanwhile, sigma values of the majority of the QIs were all above 4.0σ during the pre and the pandemic times. For the pre-analytical phase, sigma scores declined for 1 QI, improved for 3 QIs and remained same for 2. In the post analytical phase, no change in sigma metrics was noted for critical values notification. Considerable increase in defect percentage of inappropriate turnaround times was noted.
conclusionThe emergency preparedness proved to be fruitful as depicted by exceptional performance on the sigma metrics for most Qis both prior to and during the pandemic. The pre-analytical and the post analytical phases, being the most error sensitive requires strict 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.