Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 46, Issue 6

Issues

Preanalytical quality control program – an overview of results (2001–2005 summary)

Ma Jesús Alsina / Virtudes Álvarez / Núria Barba / Sandra Bullich / Mariano Cortés / Irene Escoda / Cecília Martínez-Brú

Abstract

Background: Preanalytical variables, such as sample collection, handling, transport, and storage, may affect patient results. The number of errors in the preanalytical phase may decrease by following standardized procedures.

Methods: A retrospective analysis (2001–2005) of results obtained through the Spanish Society of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Pathology Quality Assessment Program for the Preanalytical Phase has been carried out to summarize data regarding the main factors affecting the preanalytical phase quality. In such a program, participants are asked to register rejections and causes for rejection of routine or stat samples usually and locally collected at their laboratories.

Results: Results discussed refer to 105 laboratories. Of the 4,715,132 tubes expected to be received during the data collection period among participating laboratories and according to determinations included by clinicians in the request form, 32,977 (0.699%) offered a cause for rejection. Whole blood-EDTA samples and serum samples accounted for 75.6% of all samples collected among laboratories, although they only corresponded to 55.8% of all registered rejections. In total, 81% of rejections arose as a result of the following reasons: “specimen not received” (37.5%), “hemolysis” (29.3%), and “clotted sample” (14.4%). Moreover, plasma-citrate-erythrocyte sedimentation rate exhibited the highest percentage of rejection (1.473%), whereas the lowest rate corresponded to whole blood-EDTA (0.381%).

Conclusions: Overall percentage of rejection is similar to previously published data. As some of the included variables have turned out to be irrelevant, the program has been simplified from the year 2006 onwards.

Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:849–54.

Keywords: external program; preanalytical mistakes; preanalytical variability; quality control; rejection; survey

About the article

Corresponding author: Cecília Martínez-Brú, Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Sant Antoni Ma Claret, 167, 08025, Barcelona, Spain Phone: +34-932919021, Fax: +34-932919196,


Received: 2007-11-22

Accepted: 2008-02-21

Published in Print: 2008-06-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 849–854, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2008.168.

Export Citation

©2008 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
W. Tamimi, J. Martin-Ballesteros, S. Brearton, F. Q. Alenzi, and R. Hasanato
British Journal of Biomedical Science, 2012, Volume 69, Number 3, Page 103
[2]
Judit Tóth, Ágota Lenkey, Anna V. Oláh, Julianna Köteles, Valéria Kissné Sziráki, Adrienne Kerényi, and János Kappelmayer
Orvosi Hetilap, 2014, Volume 155, Number 28, Page 1113
[3]
Yuanyuan Ye, Wei Wang, Haijian Zhao, Falin He, Kun Zhong, Shuai Yuan, Yuxuan Du, Bingquan Chen, and Zhiguo Wang
Biochemia Medica, 2018, Volume 28, Number 3
[4]
María Dolores Formoso Lavandeira, Verónica Parrillas Horche, Silvia Izquierdo Álvarez, Itziar Marzana Sanz, Francisco Antonio Bernabeu Andreu, María del Patrocinio Chueca Rodríguez, Teresa Contreras Sanfeliciano, Félix Gascón Luna, María Libòria López Yeste, and Fernando Marqués García
Revista del Laboratorio Clínico, 2016, Volume 9, Number 4, Page 189
[5]
Lisa Rooper, Jamal Carter, John Hargrove, Sheri Hoffmann, and Stefan Riedel
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 2017, Volume 31, Number 3, Page e22060
[6]
Enrique Prada, Raquel Blazquez, Gabriela Gutiérrez-Bassini, Jorge Morancho, Josep M. Jou, Francisco Ramón, Carmen Ricós, and Ángel Salas
Revista del Laboratorio Clínico, 2016, Volume 9, Number 2, Page 54
[7]
L. Zhang, X. Yang, W. Wang, and Z. Wang
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, 2016, Volume 38, Number 3, Page e48
[8]
Grace Bostic, Rebecca Thompson, Stefani Atanasoski, Carrie Canlas, Hong Ye, Mark Kolins, and Marc D. Smith
Laboratory Medicine, 2015, Volume 46, Number 4, Page 347
[9]
F. Javier Gella, M. Jesús Alsina, Carmen Biosca, Nuria Serrat, Merce Montesinos, Joaquim Ruiz, Merce Ibarz, Margarita Simón, Virtudes Álvarez, Josep Torres, Maribel Llovet, Albert Blanco, and Maribel Sánchez
Revista del Laboratorio Clínico, 2015, Volume 8, Number 2, Page 61
[10]
Maximilian Bielohuby, Sarah Popp, and Martin Bidlingmaier
Molecular Metabolism, 2012, Volume 1, Number 1-2, Page 47
[12]
Rubén Gómez Rioja, María Jesús Alsina Kirchner, Virtudes Álvarez Funes, Nuria Barba Meseguer, Mariano Cortés Rius, María Antonia Llopis Díaz, and Cecilia Martínez Bru
Revista del Laboratorio Clínico, 2009, Volume 2, Number 4, Page 185
[13]
Rosa Lillo, María Salinas, Maite López-Garrigós, Loreto Cruz, Jesús López-Pérez, and Joaquín Uris
Enfermería Clínica, 2010, Volume 20, Number 1, Page 36
[14]
Robert Hawkins
Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 2012, Volume 32, Number 1, Page 5
[15]
Amivi Oleko, Fotini Betsou, Hélène Sarter, Claire Gerdil, Isabelle Desbois, Marie Aline Charles, Henri Leridon, and Stéphanie Vandentorren
Biopreservation and Biobanking, 2011, Volume 9, Number 3, Page 223
[16]
M. Salinas, M. López-Garrigós, M. Yago, M. Ortuño, A. Carratala, C. Aguado, J. Díaz, E. Rodriguez-Borja, V. Chinchilla, Á. Esteban, B. Laíz, M.Á. Lorente, and J. Uris
Revista de Calidad Asistencial, 2011, Volume 26, Number 4, Page 264
[17]
Giuseppe Lippi, Jeffrey J. Chance, Stephen Church, Paola Dazzi, Rossana Fontana, Davide Giavarina, Kjell Grankvist, Wim Huisman, Timo Kouri, Vladimir Palicka, Mario Plebani, Vincenzo Puro, Gian Luca Salvagno, Sverre Sandberg, Ken Sikaris, Ian Watson, Ana K. Stankovic, and Ana-Maria Simundic
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2011, Volume 49, Number 7
[18]
Maria Salinas, Maite Lopez-Garrigos, Emilio Flores, Mercedes Gutiérrez, Javier Lugo, and Joaquin Uris
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2009, Volume 69, Number 8, Page 822
[19]
Binita Goswami, Bhawna Singh, Ranjna Chawla, and Venkatesan Mallika
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2010, Volume 48, Number 1
[20]
Jürgen Durner
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2009, Volume 49, Number 6, Page 1026
[21]
David H. Jackson and Rosamonde E. Banks
PROTEOMICS - Clinical Applications, 2010, Volume 4, Number 3, Page 250
[22]
Tester F. Ashavaid, Sucheta P. Dandekar, S. Khodaiji, M. H. Ansari, and Adarsh Pal Singh
Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry, 2009, Volume 24, Number 4, Page 356

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in