ArticlePloS one2025
Risk management in POCT blood glucose monitoring: FMEA approach aligned with ISO 15189:2022.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Hybrid Qualitative-Quantitative FMEA Model for Risk Management in Clinical Laboratory Automation: A Case Study Integrating ISO 15189:2022.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- Residual Safety Margin-Based Risk Stratification for Hospital-Wide POCT Glucose Meters Anchored to ISO 15197: Moving Beyond Pass-Fail.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePoint-of-care testing (POCT) blood glucose meters provide rapid and convenient monitoring for clinical care and chronic disease management. However, their accuracy is often compromised by risks associated with personnel, equipment, and procedural inconsistencies. This study systematically assesses these risks using the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method and proposes control measures aligned with ISO 15189:2022 standards.
methodsThis study evaluated the risks associated with POCT blood glucose meters in clinical laboratory settings, encompassing the pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical phases. A multidisciplinary team employed FMEA to identify potential failure modes and their impacts. A risk matrix classified risks based on probability and severity, with "unacceptable" risks prompting targeted control measures. A follow-up assessment conducted three months later evaluated the effectiveness of these measures through feedback collection and quality control data analysis, ensuring effective risk mitigation in POCT practices.
resultsThe risk assessment identified distinct issues at each hospital: Peking University Shenzhen Hospital faced significant risks related to inadequate performance verification prior to hospital entry, insufficient personnel training, and data management problems, while Wuhan Third Hospital primarily encountered challenges with inadequate training and insufficient calibration and inadequate quality control. Control measures implemented at Peking University Shenzhen Hospital included stringent validation protocols, comprehensive training systems, and automated data management. At Wuhan Third Hospital, the focus was on enhancing training oversight and establishing rigorous quality control measures and calibration Schedule. These interventions effectively reduced unacceptable risks and improved the safety and reliability of the monitoring process.
conclusionIntegrating FMEA with ISO 15189:2022 provides a structured approach for identifying and mitigating risks in the use of POCT blood glucose meters. Implementing tailored measures significantly enhances POCT accuracy and reliability, offering clinical institutions effective strategies to improve quality and ensure better patient outcomes.
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.