Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:764–72. [PubMed] [Web of Science]
Favaloro EJ, Lippi G, Adcock DM. Preanalytical and postanalytical variables: the leading causes of diagnostic error in hemostasis? Semin Thromb Hemost 2008;34:612–34. [Crossref] [PubMed] [Web of Science]
Forsman RW. Why is the laboratory an afterthought for managed care organizations? Clin Chem 1996;42:813–6.
Passing H, Bablok. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983;21:709–20. [PubMed]
Martin Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurment. Lancet 1986;327:307–10. [Crossref]
Pearson ECFHOHES. Tests for rank correlation coefficients. I. Biometrika 1957;44:470–81.
Richard L. Gorsuch CS. Correlation coefficients: mean bias and confidence interval distortions. J Methods Meas Soc Sci 2010;1:52–65.
Fisher RA. Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 1915;10:507–21.
Salvagno GL, Lippi G, Bassi A, Poli G, Guidi GC. Prevalence and type of pre-analytical problems for inpatients samples in coagulation laboratory. J Eval Clin Pract 2008;14:351–3. [Crossref] [PubMed] [Web of Science]
Fischer F, Appert-Flory A, Jambou D, Toulon P. Evaluation of the automated coagulation analyzer Sysmex CA-7000. Thromb Res 2006;117:721–9. [Web of Science]
Milos M, Herak DC, Zadro R. Discrepancies between APTT results determined with different evaluation modes on automated coagulation analyzers. Int J Lab Hematol 2010;32:33–9. [Crossref] [PubMed] [Web of Science]
Molenaar PJ, Leyte A. Pre-acquisition system assessment of the Sysmex(®) Coagulation System CS-2100i and comparison with end-user verification; a model for the regional introduction of new analysers and methods. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1479–89. [Web of Science]
de Bie P, Schornagel WJ, van den Dool EJ, Bakker B, van Dam W, Heckman M, et al. Laboratory evaluation of the Coasys® Plus C coagulation analyzer. Thromb Res 2013;131:357–62. [Web of Science]
Mullier F, Vanpee D, Jamart J, Dubuc E, Bailly N, Douxfils J, et al. Comparison of five D-dimer reagents and application of an age-adjusted cut-off for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in emergency department. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2013 Nov 15. [Epub ahead of print]. [Web of Science]
Park SJ, Chi HS, Chun SH, Jang S, Park CJ. Evaluation of performance including influence by interfering substances of the innovance D-dimer assay on the Sysmex coagulation analyzer. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2011;41:20–4. [PubMed]
Jennings I, Woods TA, Kitchen DP, Kitchen S, Walker ID. Laboratory D-dimer measurement: improved agreement between methods through calibration. Thromb Haemost 2007;98:1127–35. [PubMed] [Web of Science]
Milos M, Herak D, Kuric L, Horvat I, Zadro R. Evaluation and performance characteristics of the coagulation system: ACL TOP analyzer – HemosIL reagents. Int J Lab Hematol 2009;31:26–35. [Crossref] [Web of Science] [PubMed]
Flanders MM, Crist R, Safapour S, Rodgers GM. Evaluation and performance characteristics of the STA-R coagulation analyzer. Clin Chem 2002;48:1622–4.
Bilic-Zulle L. Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression. Biochem Med 2011;21:49–52. [Crossref]