ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2026
Laboratory based quantitative scoring system for pre-analytical quality indicators in arterial blood gas analysis.
Article in Advances in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis is vital in emergency care setting for assessing respiratory and metabolic status, but its reliability is highly jeopardized by pre-analytical errors, which constitute up to 70 % of laboratory errors. This study evaluated pre-analytical quality indicators (QIs) of ABG testing by reviewing requisition forms and ABG samples at the emergency laboratory of a tertiary care hospital in Delhi, India. Methods: In this descriptive, questionnaire-based study, 205 ABG requisition forms and their corresponding samples collected over one year were assessed manually using a predefined checklist of pre-analytical quality indicators. Parameters included patient identification, requisition completeness, syringe type, tip sealing, labeling, sample volume, sample integrity, presence of clots, red cell sedimentation, and transport time (<30 min). Descriptive statistics were then applied. Results: The study results revealed major deficiencies. Documentation gaps included omission of collection time (97.07 % of all samples), ventilator/oxygen status mentioning (98.04 %), gender (9.27 %), age (6.34 %), and hospital unit (32.68 %). All samples were collected in inappropriate syringes; 89.27 % had inadequately sealed tips and 95.61 % lacked labeling. Transport delays (>30 min) occurred in 23.41 %, with clotting (14.15 %) and sedimentation (17.07 %) also noted. Inadequate volume (<0.3 mL) was found in 20 % of the total samples. Scores clustered at 8.5-10.5 (81 %), with mean=9.44 (SD=1.04); low (<8.0, 5 %) and outlier (>11.0, 3 %) scores were uncommon. Conclusions: Significant pre-analytical errors undermine ABG reliability, especially in documentation, collection, and transport. Standardized requisition forms, staff training, adherence to transport timelines, quality monitoring, and use of appropriate ABG syringes are essential to improve result accuracy and patient safety.
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.