ArticleBioinformation2024
Evaluation of pre-analytical errors using six sigma metrics towards quality of laboratory performance in an Indian tertiary care hospital.
Article in Bioinformation, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Six Sigma methodologies is one of the standard management system adopted to check the quality and improve laboratory performance continuously by assessing the laboratory process using six sigma metrics. A one-year prospective study from January 2019 to December 2019 was conducted at the laboratory of medicine department in a tertiary care hospital. A total of 162974 samples were received from both inpatient and outpatient departments and total laboratory errors were found to be 1144, with the maximum errors identified in the pre-analytical phase coming out to be 978 (0.6%). The types of errors in the pre-analytical phase after being identified and categorized were hemolyzed samples, clotted samples, phlebotomy errors, etc. The most typical error identified was clotted sample error (0.29%) followed by haemolysed sample error (0.20%). After calculating the error rate or defects per million error samples on a Sigma calculator, the value obtained was between 4 and 5 which an average class quality. Thus, we show that continuous and repeated recognition of errors and evaluating them using Six Sigma metrics can help achieve overall laboratory procedure quality and better clinical diagnosis.
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.