Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38827642›Full record

ArticleJournal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab2024

Surreptitious pipetting errors on a vendor-programmed liquid handler.

Kelly Britt-Rodriquez, Jamie Daniel, Joshua Hayden

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Kelly Britt-RodriquezMedical Technologist, CPA, Louisville, KY, USA.
Jamie DanielMedical Technologist, CPA, Louisville, KY, USA.
Joshua HaydenChief of Chemistry, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, KY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid handlers (LHs) have become common in both clinical and academic laboratories for the preparation and manipulation of samples. In theory, these systems offer the potential for reduced error due to the elimination of mis-pipetting errors. In reality, these systems still have potential for mis-pipetting and require careful validation by the end user. In this case report, we describe two instances where inappropriate pipetting by a vendor-programmed LH were observed. In each case, the worklist that was obtained from the LH failed to reflect what had actually been pipetted and as such these instances represented significant near misses with substantial potential for patient harm. Neither of these instances were caught during the laboratory's validation studies of the LH. Laboratories should be aware of the potential for mis-pipetting by LHs. LH vendors should work to ensure the worklists reflect what was pipetted (instead of what was intended to be pipetted) and end users must ensure robust validation studies that take into account as many "real world" scenarios as possible.

Indexed as

Liquid handlersMass spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID38827642
PMCPMC11141273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.