ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2022
[Multicenter editorial quality control of laboratory request forms in Niger].
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: laboratory request forms (LRF) is a means of communication between the biologist and the clinician. In Niger, to our knowledge, no study focused on the editorial quality of LRF. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the editorial quality and cost of non-compliant LRF in four main hospitals in Niamey and the representation of the CERBA laboratory in Niger. Methods: we conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional, descriptive study over a period of eight months. All LRFs sent to selected laboratories over the study period were included in this study. Results: a total of 5.651 LRFs from 30 different clinical departments were included in this study. The most reported information in the LRFs was: the patient's last name (99.79%), first name (99.65%) and date of prescription (97.45%). On the other hand, the sample date, time, and nature were reported in 0.02%, 0.21%, and 1.68% of the LRFs respectively. Overall, 9.45% of the LRFs complied with the principles of good prescribing. While the bivariate analysis showed that doctors had a tendency to prescribe better than other health workers, multivariate analysis showed that the risk of non-compliance of LRFs was not associated with the prescriber's qualification, the requesting service, and the testing cost.
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.