ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2023
Modelling CD4 reagent usage across a national hierarchal network of laboratories in South Africa.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The National Health Laboratory Service is mandated to deliver cost-effective and efficient diagnostic services across South Africa. Their mandate is achieved by a network of laboratories ranging from centralised national laboratories to distant rural facilities. Objective: This study aimed to establish a model of CD4 reagent utilisation as an independent measure of laboratory efficiency. Methods: The efficiency percentage was defined as finished goods (number of reportable results) over raw materials (number of reagents supplied) for 47 laboratories in nine provinces (both anonymised) for 2019. The efficiency percentage at national and provincial levels was calculated and compared to the optimal efficiency percentage derived using pre-set assumptions. Comparative laboratory analysis was conducted for the provinces with the best and worst efficiency percentages. The possible linear relationship between the efficiency percentage and call-outs, days lost, referrals, and turn-around time was assessed. Results: Data are reported for 2 806 799 CD4 tests, with an overall efficiency percentage of 84.5% (optimal of 84.98%). The efficiency percentage varied between 75.7% and 87.7% between provinces, while within the laboratory it ranged from 66.1% to 111.5%. Four laboratories reported an efficiency percentage ranging from 67.8% to 85.7%. No linear correlation was noted between the efficiency percentage, call-outs, days lost, and turn-around time performance. Conclusion: Reagent efficiency percentage distinguished laboratories into different utilisation levels irrespective of their CD4 service level. This parameter is an additional independent indicator of laboratory performance, with no relationship with any contributing factors tested, that can be implemented across pathology disciplines for monitoring reagent utilisation. What this study adds: This study provides an objective methodology to assess reagent utilisation as an independent measure of laboratory efficiency. This model could be applied to all routine pathology services.
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.