ArticleSage open pathology
Appropriateness of Histopathology Specimen Containers and Completeness of Laboratory Request Forms in Uganda: A Case of Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital, South Western Uganda.
Article in Sage open pathology. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Laboratory request forms (LRFs) are pivotal to histopathologists as they are the only medium through which pathologists communicate with patients and clinicians. On many occasions, the LRFs are incompletely filled and do not paint the right picture of the patient. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that audited 586 LRFs and specimen containers sent to the Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) histopathology laboratory between July 2024 and September 2024 for their completeness and appropriateness. The main parameters considered were biodata, clinical history, clinician details, and hospital details. Results: Overall, only 3.6% (21/586) of LRFs were appropriately filled. Of the 4 main parameters, biodata was the most filled at 54.1%, hospital details at 18.1%, and clinical details at 7.5%, and the least completed was clinician details at 5.6%. Conclusion: The completion rate of the LRFs is unacceptably poor, and the used specimen containers are unbefitting. Patient age and name are the most completed parameters, while requesting the physician's signature was the least completed variable. Clinicians need to be constantly reminded of their role in histopathology diagnosis through continuous medical education and the introduction of laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs) on the wards and operating theaters.
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.