ArticleEJIFCC2026
Advisory and Interpretative Services under ISO 15189:2022: A Prospective Study of Patient-Initiated Laboratory Consultations.
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: ISO 15189:2022 requires accredited medical laboratories to establish advisory and interpretative services to support appropriate test selection, result interpretation, and effective utilization of laboratory examinations.Direct-to-consumer and patient-initiated laboratory testing is reshaping traditional healthcare communication. Patients increasingly seek direct consultation with laboratory physicians for test selection and result interpretation. This study describes the drivers, patterns and perceived value of such interactions in routine laboratory practice. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted over 12 months at a high-volume ISO 15189:2022 accredited referral laboratory. All unsolicited, patient-initiated advisory consultations with laboratory physicians were systematically documented using a structured logbook. Consultations were categorized by type (pre-examination advice, post-examination interpretation, clarification of abnormal findings, and resolution of inter-laboratory discrepancies). All abnormal or discordant results discussed during consultation had undergone analytical verification in accordance with internal quality control and validation procedures. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were applied. Results: A total of 1,800 advisory consultations were recorded during the study period. The most common categories were postexamination interpretative consultation (35.6%) and clarification of abnormal results (28.3%), followed by pre-examination advice (20.0%) and resolution of inter-laboratory discrepancies (12.2%). Frequently discussed analytes included glucose profiles, lipid parameters, infectious disease serology, and screening tests. Satisfaction data were available for 1,625 consultations, with a mean score of 4.5 ± 0.6; 90% of respondents rated the consultation as satisfactory or very satisfactory. Conclusions: These findings highlight the growing demand for professional laboratory interpretation in patient-initiated testing environments and support the inclusion of advisory consultations as a measurable quality indicator within laboratory management systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42699005PMC13543432What 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.