ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2024
Validation of low-volume blood collection tubes for routine hematologic testing.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in the understanding and management of hospital-acquired anemia.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
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
Background: Low-volume blood tubes offer several advantages in facilitating blood collection, reducing iatrogenic anemia and spurious hemolysis, but their clinical reliability must be validated. We planned this investigation for establishing the reliability of routine hematologic testing in low-volume tubes before their implementation into clinical practice. Methods: Blood was drawn from 44 ostensibly healthy laboratory professionals into three blood tubes, as follows: 3.0 mL of blood into a 3.0 mL K2EDTA standard reference blood tube, 0.5 mL of blood into a second 3.0 mL K2EDTA standard blood tube, and 0.5 mL of blood into a 0.25-0.5 mL K2EDTA low-volume blood tube. Hematologic testing was performed on Sysmex XN-10 hematology analyzer. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed in total white blood cell count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, red blood cell count, platelet count, hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), and mean platelet volume in both 0.5 mL-filled 3.0 mL standard blood tubes and 0.5 mL-filled low-volume blood tubes. Although none of these variations was found to be clinically significant in the 0.5 mL-filled low-volume blood tube compared to the desirable specifications, hematocrit, MCV and MCHC displayed a clinically significant bias in the 0.5 mL filled 3.0 mL K2EDTA standard blood tube. Conclusions: These results suggests that K2EDTA low-volume blood tubes could safely replace standard blood tubes for preventing the receipt of insufficient samples, but also for facilitating blood collection in patients with difficult veins and reducing the risk of iatrogenic anemia and spurious hemolysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.