ArticlePloS one2022
The impact of laboratory staff training workshops on coagulation specimen rejection rates.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Best practices in sample management & pre-analytical quality control: overcoming challenges in resource-limited laboratory settings.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Review
- Evaluation of pre-analytical specimen rejection using Six Sigma metrics: A retrospective single-center study.PloS one · 2025Article
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
backgroundPre-analytical variables can have a significant adverse impact on the quality and credibility of coagulation test results. Therefore, correct and consistent identification of pre-analytical variables that compromise coagulation specimen quality is of paramount importance. Lack of standardization and heterogeneity among laboratory staff when assessing coagulation specimens can lead to inconsistent identification of these variables. Failure to recognize such pre-analytical variables results in the analysis of poor quality specimens and the authorization of spurious test results.
objectivesTo determine the impact of a laboratory staff training workshop on coagulation specimen rejection rates and to ascertain the level of knowledge of laboratory personnel concerning coagulation specimen rejection criteria before and after the workshop.
methodsA retrospective three-month audit was performed with rejection data of incorrect blood to additive ratio, clotted, aged and haemolysed specimens collected. Training workshops and evaluation sessions were subsequently presented. A revised standard operating procedure delineating coagulation specimen rejection criteria was implemented and a repeat three-month audit was conducted.
resultsIn total, 13 162 coagulation specimens were received during the initial audit with 1 104 specimens (8.39%) rejected. Following the workshops, the rejection rate increased by 3.49% to 11.88% with 12 743 coagulation specimens received and 1 514 specimens rejected. Evaluation sessions performed before and after the workshops revealed that 95.2% of attendees attained improved knowledge.
conclusionThis study demonstrated the pivotal importance of regular laboratory staff training. The increase in specimen rejection following the workshops signifies their success in educating laboratory personnel regarding the correct identification of pre-analytical variables. Since most pre-analytical variables occur outside the laboratory, educational workshops need to be extended to non-laboratory personnel responsible for specimen collection and transport.
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.