ArticlePloS one2026
Assessment of compliance with quality laboratory standards in medical laboratories within the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Ghana, medical laboratories are a vital component of the health system, but there has been limited evidence on how well they meet international quality standards. This study assessed compliance with laboratory standards by medical laboratories in the Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among forty-three (43) laboratory facilities, including those operating within healthcare facilities and private standalone laboratories, in the Kumasi metropolis from 8th March to 26th November, 2021. The healthcare facilities assessed include seven (7) government, four (4) Christian Health Association of Ghana (GHAG), twenty-one (21) private hospitals, and eleven (11) standalone laboratories. The World Health Organisation Stepwise Laboratory Quality Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (WHO SLIPTA) checklist was used to assess compliance with laboratory standards. The checklist comprises 12 main sections, containing 117 questions, resulting in a total of 275 scores. Each item is awarded a point value of 2, 3, or 5 points based on relative importance and complexity. Scores and percentages of compliance are categorized as follows: 0-150 (<55%), 151-177 (55-64%), 178-205 (65-74%), 206-232 (75-84%), 233-260 (85-94%), and 261-275 (≥95%). These categories ultimately translate to a rating of 0-5 stars. Descriptive analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis test were conducted to examine the differences in overall compliance scores across the types of health facilities.
resultsThe overall median compliance score was 61(interquartile range 53-66), the minimum score was 49, and the maximum score was 104. CHAG facilities had significantly higher scores than private facilities (Z = 2.53, p = 0.03) and standalone facilities (Z = 3.60, p < 0.001). Similarly, scores for government facilities were significantly higher than standalone facilities (Z = 3.30, p < 0.001).
conclusionAll facilities had a zero (0) star rating and failed to meet the minimum compliance level of 55%.
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.