ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of Pre-analytical Errors in the Histopathology Laboratory at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kenya.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundPre-analytical errors comprise inappropriate performance and procedures executed before sample analysis. These nonconformities compromise report quality, consequently impeding optimal patient management and clinical outcomes. Awareness of these errors within histopathology laboratories is crucial for maintaining diagnostic integrity.
objectiveThis study aimed to characterize the frequency, nature, and distribution of documented demographic, accessioning, and specimen-rejection errors recorded in the Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) histology laboratory registers between December 2017 and December 2019. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted reviewing data from the general laboratory register and the sample rejection register recorded between December 2017 and December 2019. Assessment focused on two major domains: demographic/accessioning errors and sample rejection criteria. Analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 20 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).
resultsA total of 757 missing patient information records were recorded during the study period. Missing patient age was the most prevalent demographic error among the missing data events, accounting for 52.2% (24/46) in December 2017, 58.6% (286/488) in 2018, 57.4% (128/223) in 2019, and overall 57.9% (438/757). Within the sample rejection category, a missing request form was the most frequently specified reason for rejection (16.0%; 8/50 in December 2017, 40.0%; 2/5 in 2018, and 60.0%; 3/5 in 2019) and overall, 21.7% (13/60). Crucially, in December 2017, 66.0% (33/50) of the samples were rejected without documentation of the specific reason for rejection.
conclusionRequisition forms were systematically underfilled, with missing patient age representing the predominant demographic discrepancy. Missing requisition forms reported with the highest frequency in this study were strongly associated with sample rejection. Furthermore, a severe lack of structured documentation regarding the reasons for specimen rejection was identified.
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.