Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36582816›Full record

ReviewPractical laboratory medicine2023

Blood specimen rejection rate in clinical laboratory: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Solomon Getawa, Melak Aynalem, Mulugeta Melku, Tiruneh Adane

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Practical laboratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Solomon GetawaDepartment of Hematology and Immunohematology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Melak AynalemDepartment of Hematology and Immunohematology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Mulugeta MelkuDepartment of Hematology and Immunohematology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Tiruneh AdaneDepartment of Hematology and Immunohematology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
University of Gondar · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical laboratory errors have a great impact on patient safety and treatment. Although specimen rejections result in longer turnaround times and increased health-care costs, different studies present inconsistent findings. Therefore, the study aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of blood specimen rejection in clinical laboratory. Methods: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, HINARI, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were comprehensively searched. Articles were screened and the data extracted independently by authors. Publication bias was checked by funnel-plots and Egger's statistical test. Pooled prevalence was estimated using a random-effects model. The I Results: Total of 26 articles with 16,118,499 blood sample requests were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of blood specimen rejection in the clinical laboratory was 1.99% (95% CI: 1.73, 2.25). Subgroup analysis showed that, the highest prevalence of specimen rejection was observed in Asia [2.82% (95%CI: 2.21, 3.43)] and lowest in America [0.55% (95%CI: 0.27, 0.82)]. The leading cause of blood specimen rejection in clinical laboratories were clotted specimen (32.23% (95%CI: 21.02, 43.43)), hemolysis (22.87% (95%CI: 16.72, 29.02)), insufficient volume (22.81% (95%CI: 16.75, 28.87)), and labelling errors (7.31% (95%CI: 6.12, 8.58)). Conclusion: The pooled prevalence of blood specimen rejection rate is relatively high especially in developing regions. Therefore, proper training for specimen collectors, compliance with good laboratory practices specific to specimen collection, transportation, and preparation is required to reduce the rejection rate.

Indexed as

Blood specimenCI:, Confidence intervalClinical laboratoryMeta-analysisRBC:, Red blood cellSpecimen rejectionTAT:, Turnaround timeUSA:, United States of America

Identifiers

PMID36582816
PMCPMC9792348
OpenAlexW4313340280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.