Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38435196›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Root Cause Analysis: Unraveling Common Laboratory Challenges.

Dharini Srinivasaragavan, Karthikeyan Ramalingam, Pratibha Ramani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Dharini SrinivasaragavanOral Pathology and Microbiology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, IND.
Karthikeyan RamalingamOral Pathology and Microbiology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, IND.
Pratibha RamaniOral Pathology and Microbiology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diverse errors occur in a pathology laboratory and manual mistakes are the most common. There are various advancements to replace manual procedures with digitized automation techniques. Guidelines and protocols are available to run a standard pathology laboratory. But, even with such attempts to reinforce and strengthen the protocols, the complete elimination of errors is yet not possible. Root cause analysis (RCA) is the best way forward to develop an error-free laboratory, In this review, the importance of RCA, common errors taking place in laboratories, methods to carry out RCA, and its effectiveness are discussed in detail. The review also highlights the potential of RCA to provide long-term quality improvement and efficient laboratory management.

Indexed as

errorsfishbonelaboratorylaboratory errororal pathology laboratoryoutcome analysispathologyquality improvementroot causeroot cause analysis

Identifiers

PMID38435196
PMCPMC10908306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.