Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38559530›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Preanalytical Errors in Clinical Laboratory Testing at a Glance: Source and Control Measures.

Nani Nordin, Siti Nadirah Ab Rahim, Wan Farhana Azwanee Wan Omar, Sarah Zulkarnain, Susmita Sinha, Santosh Kumar, Mainul Haque

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 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Nani NordinPathology, Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, National Defence University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, MYS.
Siti Nadirah Ab RahimPathology, Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, National Defence University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, MYS.
Wan Farhana Azwanee Wan OmarPathology, Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, National Defence University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, MYS.
Sarah ZulkarnainPathology, Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, National Defence University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, MYS.
Susmita SinhaPhysiology, Khulna City Medical College and Hospital, Khulna, BGD.
Santosh KumarPeriodontology and Implantology, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, IND.
Mainul HaqueKarnavati Scientific Research Center (KSRC), Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accuracy of diagnostic results in clinical laboratory testing is paramount for informed healthcare decisions and effective patient care. While the focus has traditionally been on the analytical phase, attention has shifted towards optimizing the preanalytical phase due to its significant contribution to total laboratory errors. This review highlights preanalytical errors, their sources, and control measures to improve the quality of laboratory testing. Blood sample quality is a critical concern, with factors such as hemolysis, lipemia, and icterus leading to erroneous results. Sources of preanalytical errors encompass inappropriate test requests, patient preparation lapses, and errors during sample collection, handling, and transportation. Mitigating these errors includes harmonization efforts, education and training programs, automated methods for sample quality assessment, and quality monitoring. Collaboration between laboratory personnel and healthcare professionals is crucial for implementing and sustaining these measures to enhance the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic results, ultimately improving patient care.

Indexed as

biological variationblood sample qualityhemolysislaboratory errorlaboratory processlaboratory qualitylaboratory sample rejectionphelebotomypre-analytical variablesresults inaccuracy

Identifiers

PMID38559530
PMCPMC10981510

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.