ArticleHealth science reports2025
Assessment of Hematology Laboratory Specimen Rejection Rate and Associated Factors at Northwest, Ethiopia.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: The rejection of the specimens can cause delays in diagnosis, putting patients in repeated specimen collection, leading to inconvenience and prolonged turnaround time. As a result, the laboratories should periodically determine the frequency of specimen rejections. The aim of this study is to assess the hematology laboratory specimen rejection rate and its associated factors. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2022 to February 2023. To assess the sample rejection rate and its associated factors, all blood specimens delivered to the laboratory during the study period were included. Data used to assess the sample rejection rate were collected using checklists, while data used to assess associated factors were collected through interviews. Epidata and STATA software were used for data enter and analysis, respectively. Descriptive statistics, along with bivariate and multivariate logistic analyses were used. The strength of the association between dependent and independent variables was measured using a 95% confidence interval. Results: A total of 27,242 blood specimens were assessed. From these, 982/27,242 (3.6%) blood specimens were rejected. Most of the specimens rejected were those submitted for manual hematocrit 190/1110 (17.1%) and peripheral morphology 30/170 (17.64%). The primary reasons for specimen rejection were hemolysis 239/27,242 (0.88%) and low-specimen quantity 221/27,242 (0.8%) were the main reasons for specimen rejection. Lack of adherence to standard operation procedures (SOP), specimens from the inpatient department (IPD). specimens from the emergency department, and specimens collected by non-laboratory health professionals increased the likelihood of sample rejection rate by 6.67, 2.44, 2.23, and 3.54 times, respectively. Conclusion: The study found a relatively high specimen rejection rate in the study area. Thus, concerned bodies should provide need-based training for all professionals involved in hematology laboratory sample processing by prioritizing the most common causes and aggravating factors.
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.