ArticleEJIFCC2026
National Survey on Delta Check Practices in Clinical Laboratories Across Pakistan.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Delta check is a quality control tool in clinical laboratory that compares a patient's current test results with previous ones. It is often considered to be a useful tool to identify pre-analytical errors. Delta check procedures vary across labs. A survey was conducted to determine national delta check practices. Method: An online survey was sent to pathologists. Data was analyzed by Microsoft excel and figures were generated via R statistical software. Results: The survey was sent out to 84 participants. There were 30 (35.7%) final responses, after exclusion of duplicates and incomplete entries. Respondents varied in their designations from Professor 2(6.7%) to Assistant Professor 10(33.3%). Most respondents 25 (83.3%) were Fellows of College of Physicians and Surgeons, while there were 3(10%) PhDs. Work experience varied from less than 3 years, 5(16.7%) to more than 10 years, 17(56.7%). 25 labs surveyed were from tertiary care hospitals. Most laboratories were in Sindh Province, 13 (43.3%). Delta check procedures were used by 19(63.3%) labs, of which 6(31.6%) used automated checks, 12(63.2%) had defined delta limits for different tests, 15(78.9%) had defined time limits to check delta results, 17(89.5%) had a checklist for its investigation and 10(52.6%) had a Laboratory Information System or middleware to block failed delta results. Most of the respondents considered the smallest available option as the ideal delta difference value for blocking results. Conclusion: Delta check procedures vary among surveyed labs and efforts are required for the formulation of national guidelines to synchronise and standardize delta check practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42698998PMC13543523What 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.