Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42698998›Full record

ArticleEJIFCC2026

National Survey on Delta Check Practices in Clinical Laboratories Across Pakistan.

Fatima Kanani, Saba Raza, Harim Fatima, Adnan Mustafa Zubairi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fatima KananiSection of Chemical Pathology, Indus Hospital and Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan.
Saba RazaSection of Chemical Pathology, Indus Hospital and Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan.
Harim FatimaSection of Chemical Pathology, Indus Hospital and Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan.
Adnan Mustafa ZubairiSection of Chemical Pathology, Indus Hospital and Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Delta alertsDelta checkPatient-based real time quality controlStandardizationSurvey

Identifiers

PMID42698998
PMCPMC13543523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.