8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Blood specimen rejection rate in clinical laboratory: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Clinical laboratory errors have a great impact on patient safety and treatment. Although specimen rejections result in longer turnaround times and increased health-care costs, different studies present inconsistent findings. Therefore, the study aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of blood specimen rejection in clinical laboratory.

          Methods

          Electronic databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, HINARI, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were comprehensively searched. Articles were screened and the data extracted independently by authors. Publication bias was checked by funnel-plots and Egger's statistical test. Pooled prevalence was estimated using a random-effects model. The I 2 statistical test were performed to assess heterogeneity. The possible sources of heterogeneity were analyzed through subgroup and sensitivity analysis.

          Results

          Total of 26 articles with 16,118,499 blood sample requests were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of blood specimen rejection in the clinical laboratory was 1.99% (95% CI: 1.73, 2.25). Subgroup analysis showed that, the highest prevalence of specimen rejection was observed in Asia [2.82% (95%CI: 2.21, 3.43)] and lowest in America [0.55% (95%CI: 0.27, 0.82)]. The leading cause of blood specimen rejection in clinical laboratories were clotted specimen (32.23% (95%CI: 21.02, 43.43)), hemolysis (22.87% (95%CI: 16.72, 29.02)), insufficient volume (22.81% (95%CI: 16.75, 28.87)), and labelling errors (7.31% (95%CI: 6.12, 8.58)).

          Conclusion

          The pooled prevalence of blood specimen rejection rate is relatively high especially in developing regions. Therefore, proper training for specimen collectors, compliance with good laboratory practices specific to specimen collection, transportation, and preparation is required to reduce the rejection rate.

          Highlights

          • The overall blood specimen rejection in clinical laboratory was 1.99% (95% CI: 1.73, 2.25).

          • Clotted specimen, hemolysis, insufficient volume, and labelling errors were the major cause of blood specimen rejection.

          • Proper training for specimen collectors and compliance with good laboratory practices are required to reduce the rejection rate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

              Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Pract Lab Med
                Pract Lab Med
                Practical Laboratory Medicine
                Elsevier
                2352-5517
                19 December 2022
                January 2023
                19 December 2022
                : 33
                : e00303
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Hematology and Immunohematology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Hematology and Immunohematology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, 196, Ethiopia. solomon.getawa@ 123456uog.edu.et
                Article
                S2352-5517(22)00042-7 e00303
                10.1016/j.plabm.2022.e00303
                9792348
                98a0262d-eb70-48a2-8b6e-4a73fa0998ae
                © 2022 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 May 2022
                : 10 December 2022
                : 15 December 2022
                Categories
                Review Article

                specimen rejection,blood specimen,clinical laboratory,meta-analysis,tat:, turnaround time,ci:, confidence interval,rbc:, red blood cell,usa:, united states of america

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log