ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2025
Exploring the extent of post-analytical errors, with a focus on transcription errors - an intervention within the VIPVIZA study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe examined the magnitude of transcription errors in lipid variables in the VIPVIZA study and assessed whether education among the research personnel reduced the error frequency at follow-up. We also examined how the errors affected the SCORE2 risk prediction algorithm for cardiovascular disease, which includes lipid parameters, as this could lead to an incorrect treatment decision.
methodsThe VIPVIZA study includes assessment of lipid parameters, where results for total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and calculated LDL cholesterol are transcribed into the research database by research nurses. Transcription errors were identified by recalculating LDL cholesterol, and a difference>0.15 indicated a transcription error in any of the four lipid parameters. To assess the presence of risk category misclassification, we compared the individual's SCORE2 risk category based on incorrect lipid levels to the SCORE2 categories based on the correct lipid levels.
resultsThe transcription error frequency was 0.55 % in the 2019 VIPVIZA research database and halved after the educational intervention to 0.25 % in 2023. Of the 39 individuals who had a transcription error in total or HDL cholesterol (with the possibility of affecting the SCORE2 risk category based on non-HDL cholesterol), six individuals (15 %) received an incorrect risk category due to the error.
conclusionsTranscription errors persist despite digitalisation improvements. It is essential to minimise transcriptions in fields outside the laboratory environment, as we observed that critical decisions also rely on accurate information such as the SCORE2-risk algorithm, which is dependent on lab results but not necessarily reported by the laboratory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40021473What 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.