ReviewBiochemia medica2025
National recommendations of the Working Group for Post-analytics of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine: implementation of autovalidation procedures.
Review in Biochemia medica, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autovalidation is a computerised postanalytical tool that uses a sequence of procedures to verify laboratory test results without manual intervention. The Working Group for Post-analytics of the Croatian Society for Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine has prepared procedures for the implementation of autovalidation in routine laboratory work, which complement the existing national recommendations and aim to clarify the procedures of autovalidation. Before implementation, it is necessary to determine the need for the introduction of autovalidation in routine laboratory work, and then appoint the autovalidation team, whose task is to decide in which area of laboratory work autovalidation should be introduced, create the algorithm and supervise the verification of autovalidation. Standard rules included in the algorithm are patient data, messages from the analyzer, values of interference indices, autovalidation range and delta check. All criteria defined in the autovalidation algorithm have to be documented and approved by the laboratory manager. This autovalidation procedure shows the basic rules of autovalidation that can be used by any laboratory in the initial phase. The justification for using autovalidation will depend on the number and complexity of laboratory tests, the size of the laboratory personnel, and the available financial and material resources. Autovalidation avoids the subjective evaluation of laboratory test results as it is based on the same rules and is standardised to a certain extent, which further increases the quality of laboratory test results.
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.