ReviewJournal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab2023
Assessing variations in manual pipetting: An under-investigated requirement of good laboratory practice.
Review in Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Pipetting Optimization Strategies for Accurate Concentration Measurement of High-Concentration Protein Formulations.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Article
- Article
- Human in vitro airway models to assess point-of-contact respiratory toxicity of surfactants and derive human equivalent concentrations after single dose exposure.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026Article
- Analysis of Quality Normative Requirements: Contributions to the Alignment and Standardization of Standards Applied in Health Laboratories.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Article
- Evaluation and application of automated quality control in clinical coagulation testing.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Robust determination of deuterium abundance in water.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Analytical validation of aldolase, microalbumin and myeloperoxidase in canine saliva and their evaluation in canine gingivitis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Automated Generation of Supported Lipid Bilayer Arrays with Controlled Receptor Densities in Well Plates.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Article
- Design and Validation of a Pressure-Driven Liquid Metering System with Heated PTFE Tubing for Laboratory Automation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Spatial artifact detection improves the reproducibility of drug screening experiments.iScience · 2025Article
- Development and validation of automated methods for COVID-19 PCR Master Mix preparation.SLAS technology · 2024Article
- Article
- Antimicrobial non-porous surfaces: a comparison of the standards ISO 22196:2011 and the recently published ISO 7581:2023.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pipettes are essential tools for biomedical and analytical laboratories, analogous to workstations for computer scientists. Variation in pipetting is a known unknown, as it is generally accepted that variations exist, but thus far, there have been limited studies on the extent of these variations in practice. In this mini-review, we highlight how manual pipetting is a key technique in the laboratory, and, although simple, inaccuracy and imprecision exist. If variations are not adequately addressed, errors can be compounded and consequently compromise data quality. Determination of the accuracy and precision of manual pipetting is straightforward, and here we review two common approaches that use gravimetry and spectrophotometry as readouts. We also provide detailed protocols for determination of accuracy and precision using manual single and multi-channel pipettes. These simple-to-use methods can be used by any laboratory for competency training and regular checks. Having a common protocol for evaluation of variation will also enable cross-laboratory comparison and potentially facilitate establishment of a reference value of acceptable ranges for operator error. Such a value could be of relevance to the scientific community for benchmarking and assuring good laboratory practice.
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.