ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2026
Comparative evaluation of two different blood collection tubes for hematological and biochemical testing.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2026. 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
Background: Blood collection tubes can influence sample stability and analytical accuracy. We compared two different commercially available tube systems, Vacutainer® (BD) and Vacusera® (Disera), assessing stability of hematological and biochemical parameters under various preanalytical conditions. Methods: Residual blood samples from routine laboratory testing were aliquoted into both different tubes. Parameters measured included Red blood cells (RBC), White blood cells (WBC), Hemoglobin (Hb), Potassium (K), Chloride (Cl), Sodium (Na), Aspartate aminotransferase (AST), Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), along with hemolysis index. Preanalytical variables included storage temperature (ambient vs 4 °C), storage time (T Results: From January 27 to July 31, 2025, 95 samples were analyzed: 49 from the Castellanza Hospital site, located approximately 50 km from the main laboratory (26 stored at room temperature, 23 at 4 °C), and 46 from the Fantoli MultiLab Laboratory (25 samples at room temperature, 21 at 4 °C), yielding 6621 determinations. Comparative analysis demonstrated no clinically significant differences between the two tube types under all tested conditions. Minor variations in K, Na and LDH (Castellanza Hospital site), Hb and ALT (Fantoli MultiLab Laboratory) were within acceptable analytical variation. Hemolysis index remained comparable between tubes in all scenarios, including transport and delayed processing. Conclusion: Vacutainer® (BD) and Vacusera® (Disera) tube systems showed analytical equivalence across hematology and biochemistry parameters under multiple preanalytical conditions. We conclude that the tubes are suitable for common clinical hematological use and show acceptable performance for common clinical chemistry parameters.
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.