ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
V-PRO Blood Collection Tubes: Validation for Clinical Chemistry and Immunoassay Tests.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn accredited laboratories, each component of diagnostic products-such as laboratory instruments, reagents, and blood collection tubes must be validated before integration into routine patient testing. BD Vacutainers are commonly used in clinical laboratories compared to other blood collection tubes, while V-PRO tubes have recently been introduced to the market without prior laboratory validation. This study compares V-PRO tubes to BD Vacutainers to assess the validity of using V-PRO tubes for blood testing. MATERIALS AND
methodsBlood samples were collected simultaneously into two different brands of tubes (V-PRO and BD) from 60 subjects. A standardized procedure was employed for sample collection, and analysis. A total of 28 chemistry tests and 20 immunoassays were analyzed using Abbott instruments, while high-performance liquid chromatography was used for testing glycated hemoglobin. The biases of V-PRO compared to BD were evaluated against current desirable quality specifications for bias derived from biological variation. For technical validation, a designated survey was distributed to various institutes using both tube types in their laboratories.
resultsThe V-PRO tube exhibited biases exceeding the desirable limits for CO
conclusionsLaboratories currently using BD vacutainers should exercise caution if they intend to perform chemistry and immunoassay tests with V-PRO tubes. The technical validation outcomes for V-PRO were not acceptable due to significant faults identified in comparison to BD Vacutainer.
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.