The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency
Abstract
Application of Total Quality Management concepts to laboratory testing requires that the total process, including preanalytical and postanalytical phases, be managed so as to reduce or, ideally, eliminate all defects within the process itself. Indeed a “mistake” can be defined as any defect during the entire testing process, from ordering tests to reporting results. We evaluated the frequency and types of mistakes found in the “stat” section of the Department of Laboratory Medicine of the University-Hospital of Padova by monitoring four different departments (internal medicine, nephrology, surgery, and intensive care unit) for 3 months. Among a total of 40 490 analyses, we identified 189 laboratory mistakes, a relative frequency of 0.47%. The distribution of mistakes was: preanalytical 68.2%, analytical 13.3%, and postanalytical 18.5%. Most of the laboratory mistakes (74%) did not affect patients’ outcome. However, in 37 patients (19%), laboratory mistakes were associated with further inappropriate investigations, thus resulting in an unjustifiable increase in costs. Moreover, in 12 patients (6.4%) laboratory mistakes were associated with inappropriate care or inappropriate modification of therapy. The promotion of quality control and continuous improvement of the total testing process, including pre- and postanalytical phases, seems to be a prerequisite for an effective laboratory service.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bonini, P., Plebani, M., Ceriotti, F., & Rubboli, F. (2002) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/48.5.691 · Cited by 850
Self-citationErrors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine?
Plebani, M. (2006) · Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · doi:10.1515/cclm.2006.123 · Cited by 734
Self-citationDoes POCT reduce the risk of error in laboratory testing?
Plebani, M. (2009) · Clinica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.014 · Cited by 97
Self-citationCornes, M., van Dongen-Lases, E., Grankvist, K., Ibarz, M., Kristensen, G., Lippi, G., Nybo, M., & Simundic, A.-M. (2017) · Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · doi:10.1515/cclm-2016-0426 · Cited by 92
Influence of a light meal on routine haematological tests.
(2010) · PubMed Central · doi:10.2450/2009.0142-09 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Plebani, M., & Carraro, P.
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-08-01
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1348-1351
- ISSN
- 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8561
- OpenAlex
- W1898362077
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/clinchem/43.8.1348
- The paper
- Plebani, M., & Carraro, P. (1997). Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/43.8.1348
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.