ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Comparative Evaluation of Centrifugation Speed and Its Impact on Diagnostic Accuracy.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTimely laboratory results are essential for effective clinical decision-making, with turnaround time (TAT) serving as a key performance indicator. Pre-analytical steps like centrifugation significantly impact TAT. This study investigates whether a shorter, high-speed centrifugation can reduce TAT while maintaining the analytical accuracy required for routine diagnostic testing. METHODOLOGY: This comparative experimental study analyzed blood samples from patients using plasma and serum tubes. Two centrifugation methods (A: (routine) 10 min at 3200 g; B: (faster) 5 min at 4000 g) were compared across chemistry, immunochemistry, coagulation, and interference indices.
resultsMost analytes showed no significant difference between the two methods, indicating strong analytical agreement. However, significant differences were observed in sodium (p = 0.003), CKMB (p = 0.044), ALP (p = 0.001), ALT (p = 0.011), FRT4 (p < 0.001), PT (p = 0.008), and INR (p = 0.003). Despite these differences, all values remained within clinically acceptable ranges. Hemolysis rates decreased notably under the high-speed method, dropping from 10.4% to 5.1%. Bias analysis across tube types revealed greater variability for CKMB and ALT under the high-speed method (bias = 2.76 and -2.92; CVs = 68.8% and 84.16%, respectively).
conclusionHigh-speed centrifugation significantly reduces processing time without compromising clinical reliability. Despite minor analyte differences, all values ramined within acceptable clinical ranges. Furthermore, the observed reduction in hemolysis rates strengthens the case for adopting the high-speed method as a reliable, efficient, and clinically safe alternative for routine laboratory workflows.
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.