ArticleLaboratory medicine2026
Improving laboratory criteria to reduce unnecessary peripheral blood smear reviews by pathologists.
Article in Laboratory medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPathologists frequently perform reviews of peripheral blood smears with limited clinical impact. There is considerable heterogeneity, however, in the laboratory criteria different institutions use to trigger these pathologist blood smear reviews (PBSRs).
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 1782 laboratory-initiated PBSRs performed at our institution to understand the indications for PBSR and their outcomes. Based on our findings, we revised our laboratory's PBSR criteria as part of a quality improvement initiative to reduce the number of unnecessary reviews. All PBSRs were tracked for several months before and after the intervention to assess the impact of our intervention.
resultsAt baseline, 89% of PBSRs yielded no additional information, and only 6% yielded new information that appeared to be clinically impactful. The PBSR criteria based on abnormal platelet counts or leukopenia contributed to a disproportionate number of noncontributory reviews. Removing these conditions from our criteria led to an increase in the proportion of PBSRs yielding novel information from 7% to 16% and reduced the total number of reviews performed monthly by 17%. DISCUSSION: Removal of low-yield conditions from our laboratory's PBSR criteria led to a reduction in the number of unnecessary reviews performed. Our work demonstrates a practical quality improvement strategy to improve PBSR utility without compromising patient care.
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.