Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

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 / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.

IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 3.017
Rank 5 out of 30 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.873
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.982
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 2.238

249,00 € / $374.00 / £187.00*

See all formats and pricing


Select Volume and Issue


30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Evaluation of errors in a clinical laboratory: a one-year experience

Binita Goswami1, a / Bhawna Singh1, a / Ranjna Chawla1 / Venkatesan Mallika1

1Department of Biochemistry, GB Pant Hospital, New Delhi, India

aBinita Goswami and Bhawna Singh contributed equally to the paper.

Corresponding author: Dr. Bhawna Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry, GB Pant Hospital, Room No. 418, Fourth Floor, New Delhi, India Phone: +91-0-9718599054,

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 63–66, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2010.006, January 2010

Publication History



Background: Efficient laboratory service is the cornerstone of modern health care systems. Scientific innovations have contributed to substantial improvements in the field of laboratory science, but errors still prevail. These errors are classified as preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical, depending upon the time of presentation.

Methods: The data for 67,438 routine venous blood specimens were scrutinized, and errors were documented over the period of 1 year in the clinical biochemistry laboratory of Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital in Delhi, India.

Results: Preanalytical errors were most common, with a frequency of 77.1% followed by postanalytical 15% and analytical 7.9%, respectively.

Conclusions: Our study illustrates the importance of proper venipuncture procedures, analytical expertise and correct transcription of numerical data for precise and accurate reporting of results to clinicians. There is an urgent need for close inter-departmental cooperation to meet the goal of ensuring patient well being.

Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:63–6.

Keywords: analytical errors; clinical laboratory; postanalytical errors; preanalytical errors; turn around time

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.

Lena Jafri, Aysha Habib Khan, Farooq Ghani, Shahid Shakeel, Ahmed Raheem, and Imran Siddiqui
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, 2015, Volume 75, Number 4, Page 296
Felipe Martínez Lomakin and Catalina Tobar
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2014, Volume 51, Number 6, Page 332
C. Sindhulina and N. J. Joseph
Vox Sanguinis, 2014, Volume 107, Number 2, Page 153
Vivek Bhat, Manikchandra Tiwari, Preeti Chavan, and Rohini Kelkar
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2012, Volume 413, Number 15-16, Page 1203
S. Ashakiran, M.E. Sumati, and N. Krishna Murthy
Clinical Biochemistry, 2011, Volume 44, Number 10-11, Page 944

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.