ArticleCureus2022
A Practical Tool for Risk Management in Clinical Laboratories.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating risk in biological quality testing: A guide for emerging laboratories.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Article
- Impact of FMEA-based proactive nursing combined with individualized functional exercise on hip function in patients following hip replacement.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- Laboratory risk management for INR alert values.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk management constitutes an essential component of the Quality Management System (QMS) of medical laboratories. The international medical laboratory standard for quality and competence, International Standards Organization (ISO) 15189, in its 2012 version, specified risk management for the first time. Since then, there has been much focus on this subject. We authors aimed to develop a practical tool for risk management in a clinical laboratory that contains five major cyclical steps: risk identification, quantification, prioritization, mitigation, and surveillance. The method for risk identification was based on a questionnaire that was formulated by evaluating five major components of laboratory processes, namely i) Specimen, ii) Test system, iii) Reagent, iv) Environment, and v) Testing. All risks that would be identified using the questionnaire can be quantified by calculating the risk priority number (RPN) using the tool, failure modes, and effects analysis (FMEA). Based on the calculated RPN, identified risks then shall be prioritized and mitigated. Based on our collective laboratory management experience, we authors also enlisted and scheduled a few process-specific quality assurances (QA) activities. The listed QA activities intend to monitor new risk emergence and re-emergence of those previously mitigated ones. We authors believe that templates of risk identification, risk quantification, and risk surveillance presented in this article will serve as ready references for supervisors of clinical laboratories.
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.