Haemolysis: An overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, ISSN: 1434-6621, Vol: 46, Issue: 6, Page: 764-772
2008
- 377Citations
- 326Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations377
- Citation Indexes374
- 374
- CrossRef203
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Captures326
- Readers326
- 326
Review Description
Prevention of medical errors is a major goal of healthcare, though healthcare workers themselves have not yet fully accepted or implemented reliable models of system error, and neither has the public. While there is widespread perception that most medical errors arise from an inappropriate or delayed clinical management, the issue of laboratory errors is receiving a great deal of attention due to their impact on the quality and efficiency of laboratory performances and patient safety. Haemolytic specimens are a frequent occurrence in clinical laboratories, and prevalence can be as high as 3.3% of all of the routine samples, accounting for up to 40%-70% of all unsuitable specimens identified, nearly five times higher than other causes, such as insufficient, incorrect and clotted samples. This article focuses on this challenging issue, providing an overview on prevalence and leading causes of in vivo and in vitro haemolysis, and tentative guidelines on identification and management of haemolytic samples in clinical laboratories. This strategy includes continuous education of healthcare personnel, systematic detection/quantification of haemolysis in any sample, immediate clinicians warning on the probability of in vivo haemolysis, registration of non-conformity, completing of tests unaffected by haemolysis and request of a second specimen for those potentially affected. © 2008 by Walter de Gruyter.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=44949158707&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2008.170; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18601596; https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cclm.2008.46.issue-6/cclm.2008.170/cclm.2008.170.xml; https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cclm.2008.46.issue-6/cclm.2008.170/cclm.2008.170.pdf; https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/CCLM.2008.170/html
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know