Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
1. Luksic AH, Nikolac Gabaj N, Miler M, Dukic L, Bakliza A, Simundic AM. Visual assessment of hemolysis affects patient safety. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:574–81.10.1515/cclm-2017-0532Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Lippi G, Cadamuro J, von Meyer A, Simundic AM. Practical recommendations for managing hemolyzed samples in clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:718–27.10.1515/cclm-2017-1104Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Lippi G, Plebani M, Di Somma S, Cervellin G. Hemolyzed specimens: a major challenge for emergency departments and clinical laboratories. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2011;48:143–53.10.3109/10408363.2011.600228Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Jeffery J, Sharma A, Ayling RM. Detection of haemolysis and reporting of potassium results in samples from neonates. Ann Clin Biochem 2009;46(Pt 3):222–5.10.1258/acb.2009.008241Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Simundic AM, Nikolac N, Ivankovic V, Ferenec-Ruzic D, Magdic B, Kvaternik M, et al. Comparison of visual vs. automated detection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed specimens: can we rely on a human eye? Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:1361–5.10.1515/CCLM.2009.306Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Roche DiaLog – eServices. Cobas 8000 inserts. https://dialog1.roche.com/es/es/elabdoc. Accessed: 15 Apr 2019.Search in Google Scholar
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston