ArticleBiochemia medica2021
The concurrence of the current postanalytical phase management with the national recommendations: a survey of the Working Group for Postanalytics of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- National recommendations of the Working Group for Postanalytics of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine: Quality indicators of the postanalytical phase.Biochemia medica · 2026Review
- Article
- Use of external quality assessment in extra-analytical phases in clinical laboratories in Spain: a survey by the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQCAdvances in laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe detection and prevention of errors in the postanalytical phase can be done through the harmonization and standardization of constituent parts of this phase of laboratory work. The aim was to investigate how well the ongoing management of the postanalytical phase corresponds to the document "Post-analytical laboratory work: national recommendations" in Croatian medical biochemistry laboratories (MBLs). MATERIALS AND
methodsAll 195 MBLs participating in the national external quality assessment scheme, were invited to undertake a part in a survey. Through 23 questions the participants were asked about management of the reference intervals (RI), delta check, reflex/reflective testing, postanalytical quality indicators and other parts of the postanalytical phase recommended in the national recommendations. The results are presented in numbers and percentages.
resultsOut of 195 MBLs, 119 participated in the survey, giving a response rate of 61%. Not all of the respondents provided answers to all the questions. Delta check has not been used in 59% (70/118) of the laboratories. Only 22/113 (20%) laboratories use reflex and/or reflective testing. In 53% of the laboratories, critical results were reported within 30 minutes of the confirmation of the results. In 34% (40/118) of the laboratories, turnaround time and reporting of critical results are two most often monitored postanalytical quality indicators.
conclusionThe results showed the critical results reporting and monitoring of postanalytical quality indicators are in the line with the recommendations. However, the management of RI verification, the use of delta check and reflex/reflective testing still must be harmonized among Croatian MBLs.
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.