ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2021
An opportunity to emphasize the relevance of laboratory medicine.
Article in Advances in laboratory medicine, 2021. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are recommendations based on a systematic review of scientific evidence that are intended to help healthcare professionals and patients make the best clinical decisions. CPGs must be evidence-based and are designed by multidisciplinary teams. The purpose of this study is to assess the topics related to the clinical laboratory addressed in CPGs and evaluate the involvement of laboratory professionals in the CPG development process. Methods: A total of 16 CPGs recommended by the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine and/or retrieved from PubMed-Medline were included. A review of the information provided in CPGs about 80 topics related to the clinical laboratory was performed. The authorship of laboratory professionals was assessed. Results: On average, the 16 CPGs addressed 49% (standard deviation [SD]: 11%) of the topics evaluated in relation to the clinical laboratory. By order of frequency, CPGs contained information about 69% of postanalytical variables (SD: 20%); 52% of preanalytical variables (SD: 11%); and 43% of the analytical variables studied (SD: 18%). Finally, half the CPGs included a laboratory professional among its authors. Conclusions: CPGs frequently failed to provide relevant laboratory-related information. Laboratory professionals were co-authors in only half the CPGs. There is scope for improvement, and laboratory professionals should be included in multidisciplinary teams involved in the development of CPGs.
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.