ArticleCritical care medicine2026
Discrepancies Between Point of Care and Central Laboratory Sodium and Potassium Measurements in ICU: Analytical Biases and Physician Awareness.
Article in Critical care 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBlood electrolyte panels, especially sodium ion (Na + ) and potassium ion (K + ), are fundamental and routine tests. In critical care settings, these measurements are typically performed by central laboratories using indirect potentiometry (IP) or via point-of-care blood gas analyzers using direct potentiometry (DP). Discrepancies between the two methods exist, and clinicians often have limited knowledge regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each technique. We wanted to quantify these observations.
designWe compared prospectively Na + and K + measurements obtained from the same blood draw using both IP and DP (including analyses of correlation, agreement, and discrepancies). We also conducted a brief survey among physicians to assess their knowledge regarding IP and DP. SETTINGS: A tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 501 paired measurements were prospectively collected from an ICU population.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsWe assessed the degree of agreement between the two methods. We also examined the impact of proteinemia and hemolysis on Na + and K + values, respectively. Only 31.1% of the 103 responding physicians were aware of the analytical bias in Na + measurements obtained by IP, and 45.6% considered K + measurements from DP to be as reliable or more reliable than those obtained by IP. The agreement between the two methods was moderate (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient: 0.90 for Na + and 0.93 for K + ). The 95% limit of agreement for Na + was particularly large (10.48 mmol/L). The divergence between the two methods, defined as a discrepancy in classification (within, below, or above the normal range), occurred in approximately 10% of cases, for both Na + and K + .
conclusionsIP and DP were not interchangeable, each exhibiting distinct strengths and limitations. Enhancing physician awareness of the differences between these methods could improve the quality of care.
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.