Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40584979›Full record

ArticleEJIFCC2025

Maximizing Returns: Optimizing Biochemistry Lab Performance through Six Sigma application, a Yearlong Cost-Benefit Study in an Indian Laboratory.

Mohini Rathore, Dharamveer Yadav, Mithu Banerjee, Sojit Tomo, Shailja Sharma, Shrimanjunath Sankanagoudar, Kamla Kant Shukla, Maithili Karpaga Selvi, Purvi Purohit, Praveen Sharma and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJIFCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Mohini RathoreBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Dharamveer YadavBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Mithu BanerjeeBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Sojit TomoBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Shailja SharmaBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Shrimanjunath SankanagoudarBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Kamla Kant ShuklaBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Maithili Karpaga SelviBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Purvi PurohitBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Praveen SharmaBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Snigdha SinghBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Amandeep BirdiBiochemistry Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.
Raghavendra Singh ShekhawatForensic and Medicine Toxicology Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: One of the most essential components of a clinical laboratory's overall quality management system is quality control (QC) validation. We typically tend to use more reagents and resources than necessary in an attempt to preserve quality. Achieving higher results while using fewer resources is time imperative. We have attempted to address this issue by providing cost-benefit analysis by implementing effective QC procedures using six sigma methodology and their financial benefits. Material and methods: Six sigma calculation of 23 routine chemistry parameters was performed over a period of one-year using bias% and cv%. New Westgard sigma rules were applied using Biorad Unity 2.0 software. A comparison was made before and after new sigma rules application including false rejection rate, probability of error detection rate, cost of all reruns, repeats, etc. Relative and absolute annual savings were computed and compared. Results: Compared to the current rule, there was absolute savings of Indian Rupees (INR) 750105.27 when both internal failure and external failure costs were combined after the candidate rule was employed. The reduction in expenses varied with the quantity of samples examined and the quantity of QC operations carried out each day leading to an internal failure costs cut down by 50% (INR 501808.08) and external failure costs by 47% (INR 187102.8). Conclusion: The study highlighted how quality control techniques in clinical laboratories need to be carefully planned in order to achieve significant cost reductions by lowering internal or external failure costs and effective prevention and appraisal cost planning activities prior.

Indexed as

Bias%Cost effectiveCV%QGIRandomSigma metricsSystematicWestgard rules

Identifiers

PMID40584979
PMCPMC12205154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.