ArticleEJIFCC2026
Nationwide Survey on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices regarding Reference Interval Utilization in Clinical Laboratories in Nepal.
Article in EJIFCC, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reference intervals (RIs) are critical for accurate clinical decision-making, yet many laboratories rely on manufacturer-provided RIs without local validation. This study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of clinical laboratories in Nepal regarding RI utilization, highlighting challenges and opportunities for standardization in alignment with ISO 15189:2022 accreditation. Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional KAP survey was conducted among 56 laboratory professionals. Data were collected via an online questionnaire, covering demographics, RI knowledge, current practices, challenges, and attitudes toward national standardization. Descriptive and inferential statistics (chi-square, Fisher's exact tests) were used for analysis. Results: While 71.4% of respondents correctly defined RIs as the 2.5th-97.5th percentiles, 28.6% held misconceptions. Most laboratories relied on manufacturer-provided RIs (87.5%) or published literature (67.9%). Key challenges to derive one's own RI included method variability and recruiting reference individuals. Accredited labs (ISO 15189) demonstrated better knowledge of RI (93.3% vs. 63.4%, p=0.032) and higher confidence in using current RI (26.7% vs. 7.3%, p=0.047). Strong interest existed in national RI standardization (92.9%) and training (85.7% preferred hands-on workshops). Conclusions: This survey of higher tier clinical laboratories in Nepal reveals that while these laboratories generally understand the importance of reference intervals, significant gaps in practice and standardization remain. The findings highlight an urgent need for inclusive strategies that also address the unique constraints of smaller, widespread laboratories, which perform a large proportion of routine testing in the country. The intense interest in a national program presents an opportunity to improve. Multicenter studies and RI validation integration into accreditation are needed to improve diagnostic accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42006494PMC13088420What 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.