ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Comparative Analysis of Detection Capabilities for Hepatitis B Antibody, Hepatitis C Antibody, and Syphilis Antibody in Different Medical Institutions in Kaifeng, China.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to analyze the participation and results of the interlaboratory quality assessment for serological biomarkers of infectious diseases, including a five-panel test for hepatitis B, hepatitis C antibodies, and syphilis spirochete antibodies in Kaifeng City, China. Methods: The assessment conducted by the Center for Clinical Laboratories in Kaifeng City from 2021 to 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Laboratories participating in the interlaboratory quality assessment activities received two batches of independent clinical laboratory quality control material. These samples were tested in accordance with the provided test instruction manual. The reported results were statistically compared and assessed against those obtained by the clinical testing center. Results: Data analysis revealed no significant differences in report rates and passing rates among medical institutions of varying levels. However, a significant statistical difference was observed between primary and tertiary hospitals ( Conclusion: The retrospective analysis of interlaboratory quality assessment activities, along with the statistical assessment of test results, assists clinical laboratories in identifying potential systematic and random errors, as well as other factors contributing to control loss. This process facilitates the timely development of effective improvement measures, enhancing test quality and ensuring the provision of accurate and reliable laboratory data for clinical use.
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.