ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2025
Evaluation of performance in preanalytical phase EQA: can laboratories mitigate common pitfalls?
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPreanalytical phase is an elemental part of laboratory diagnostics, but is prone to humane errors. The aim of this study was to evaluate performance in preanalytical phase external quality assessment (EQA) cases. We also suggest preventive actions for risk mitigation.
methodsWe included 12 EQA rounds (Labquality Ltd.) with three patient cases (36 cases, 54-111 participants, 7-15 countries) published in 2018-2023. We graded performance according to percentage of correct responses in each case as ≥900 % excellent, 70-89 % good, 50-69 % satisfactory, 30-49 % fair and <30 % poor. Performance was simultaneously failed with ≥10 % of responses leading to harmful events.
resultsOverall performance was excellent in 7, good in 12, satisfactory in 10, fair in 4 and poor in 3 cases. Additionally, 7 cases showed failed performance. Routine requests with incorrect sample tubes or incorrect sample handling were detected with good performance. Lower performance was seen with sudden abnormal results, with rare requests, with false patient identification (never-events) and with incorrect test requests. Information technology (IT) solutions (preanalytical checklists, autoverification rules and patient specific notifications) could have prevented 33 of 36 preanalytical errors.
conclusionsWhile most common errors were detected with good performance, samples with rare requests or those requiring individualised consideration are vulnerable to human misinterpretation. In many instances, samples with preanalytical errors should have been identified and rejected before reaching the laboratory or being directed to analysis. Optimising IT solutions to effectively detect these preanalytical errors allows for focus on infrequent events demanding accessible professional consultation. EQA preanalytical cases may help in education of correct actions in these occasions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39672671What 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.