ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2025
Knowledge among clinical personnel on the impact of hemolysis using blood gas analyzers.
Article in Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn the light of a rapidly increasing use of POCT blood gas testing, where tests and interpretation are performed by non-laboratory personnel, the objective was to investigate the knowledge among personnel in the Nordic countries using blood gas analyzers with focus on the interference from hemolysis.
methodsInformation was obtained from a self-developed, pre-tested online questionnaire. The questions covered demographic information about the respondents and specific questions on handling of and knowledge about blood gas analyses and the impact of hemolysis. The questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to relevant colleagues on behalf of the Nordic preanalytical scientific working group under the Nordic Federation of Clinical Chemistry.
resultsA total of 117 respondents completed the questionnaire. 62.7 % respondents both used the analyzer and interpreted the results. 59.6 % respondents did not know to which degree the blood gas analyzer can identify hemolysis. 4.4 % answered that all levels or high levels of hemolysis can be detected. 3.9 % considered the result valid despite hemolysis if it is released from the instrument. 73.7 % of all respondents knew that hemolysis alters potassium measurements, while knowledge about the effect on PaO
conclusionsThe knowledge about blood gas analyzers with focus on the interference from hemolysis is sparse among non-laboratory personnel using the blood gas analyzers. This emphasizes the need for better education and competence management, which perhaps is even more important for these analyses than for other point-of-care tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39655635What 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.