ArticlePloS one2025
The effect of laboratory critical value reporting on patient management at Siriraj Hospital - Thailand's largest national tertiary referral center.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Critical laboratory values are life-threatening results that necessitate immediate medical intervention. Reporting these values according to established guidelines is essential for ensuring optimal patient safety and care quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the laboratory critical value reporting system and the actions taken at Siriraj Hospital - Thailand's oldest and largest teaching hospital - during January 2018. This study reviewed critical values from hematology, coagulation, and clinical chemistry tests over a one-month period. Patient management actions in response to critical values were classified into five categories: treatment, further investigation, monitoring, treatment combined with investigation, and other. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data in Microsoft Excel 2019, calculating the incidence of critical values, notification rates, and management actions. Of the 253,537 tests that were performed, 2,722 critical levels were found, indicating an incidence rate of 1.1%. Hemoglobin and potassium were the most frequently observed critical parameters, accounting for 25.61% and 23.99% of cases, respectively. The rate of notification varied depending on the specific parameter and patient category. For critical glucose and potassium levels, the most common response was close monitoring within 30 minutes, followed by treatment in 80% of cases. Hypermagnesemia, a condition linked to preeclampsia and treated with magnesium sulfate, required particularly careful monitoring. The 1.1% incidence of critical values in this study is high compared to previously published international data; however, this may be explained by the high volume of complex cases referred to our national tertiary referral center. Critical value reporting criteria should be established based on patient conditions and hospital management practices to reduce unnecessary alerts, optimize laboratory workload, and ensure high-quality patient care.
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.