ArticleHealth science reports2026
Sample Rejection Rate, Reasons for Rejection and Associated Factors Among Clinical Specimens Requested for Diagnostic Testing at Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, South Gondar Zone, North West Ethiopia, 2025: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Clinical specimen rejection is a significant issue in laboratory medicine, particularly in resource-limited settings such as Ethiopia. Understanding the underlying reasons for specimen rejection is crucial for implementing effective strategies to minimize errors, enhance laboratory performance, and improve patient care. The aim of this study was to assess the rate and reasons for clinical specimen rejection at Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital Laboratory from June 17 to July 16, 2025. Methods: An institution based cross-sectional study was conducted from June 17 to July 16, 2025. It included all specimens submitted for diagnostic testing during the study period. Data were analyzed using STATA version 17. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the rejection rate and identify possible reasons. Binary and Multivariable logistic regression was used to show the association between the rejection rate and independent variables and Results: Out of 952 specimens analyzed, 58; 6.09% (95% CI: 4.6-7.6) were rejected. Mislabeled samples (17; 29.3%) and clotted samples (15; 25.86%) were the common causes of specimen rejection. Most rejections were associated with specimens collected by non-laboratory health professionals 35 (60.3%), not trained refresher training 44 (75.9%), and those with over 6 years of experience 40 (69%). The highest rejection rates were observed from the inpatient service and during the day shift, 51 (87.94%) and 45 (77.58%), respectively. Samples not collected by laboratory personnel and health professionals not taken refresher training had higher odds of rejection. Conclusion: The present study showed that the overall specimen rejection rate was relatively high from previous studies conducted. Mislabeled samples, clotted specimens, and low sample volume were the most common reasons of rejection. Samples taken by health professionals not taking refresher training and collected by health professionals other than laboratory personnel showed high risk to be rejected.
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.