Cited by 139Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlUAV Applications and OptimizationBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Can unmanned aerial systems (drones) be used for the routine transport of chemistry, hematology, and coagulation laboratory specimens?

Open access
Amukele, Timothy K., Sokoll, Lori J., Pepper, Daniel, Howard, Dana P., Street, Jeff·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS or drones) could potentially be used for the routine transport of small goods such as diagnostic clinical laboratory specimens. To the best of our knowledge, there is no published study of the impact of UAS transportation on laboratory tests. METHODS: Three paired samples were obtained from each one of 56 adult volunteers in a single phlebotomy event (336 samples total): two tubes each for chemistry, hematology, and coagulation testing respectively. 168 samples were driven to the flight field and held stationary. The other 168 samples were flown in the UAS for a range of times, from 6 to 38 minutes. After the flight, 33 of the most common chemistry, hematology, and coagulation tests were performed. Statistical methods as well as performance criteria from four distinct clinical, academic, and regulatory bodies were used to evaluate the results. RESULTS: Results from flown and stationary sample pairs were similar for all 33 analytes. Bias and intercepts were <10% and <13% respectively for all analytes. Bland-Altman comparisons showed a mean difference of 3.2% for Glucose and <1% for other analytes. Only bicarbonate did not meet the strictest (Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program) performance criteria. This was due to poor precision rather than bias. There were no systematic differences between laboratory-derived (analytic) CV's and the CV's of our flown versus terrestrial sample pairs however CV's from the sample pairs tended to be slightly higher than analytic CV's. The overall concordance, based on clinical stratification (normal versus abnormal), was 97%. Length of flight had no impact on the results. CONCLUSIONS: Transportation of laboratory specimens via small UASs does not affect the accuracy of routine chemistry, hematology, and coagulation tests results from selfsame samples. However it results in slightly poorer precision for some analytes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0134020

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some evidence from high-income countries suggests that drones can reduce delivery times and improve the quality of blood components.

    “Some evidence from high-income countries suggests that drones can reduce delivery times 14 and improve the quality of blood components.15,16”

    From Effect of unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) delivery on blood product delivery time and wastage in Rwanda: a retrospective, cross-sectional study and time series analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    Citation 14 is attached to delivery times, so this source is assessed for the claim that drones improve the quality of blood components. The Conclusions (page unavailable) report no systematic differences in test results between flown and terrestrial diagnostic specimens, but slightly worse precision in the flown samples. The study does not report an improvement in blood-component quality. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A study in the USA found that drones resulted in a median time saving of 16 min for automated external defibrillator delivery.

    “For example, a study in the USA found that drones resulted in a median time saving of 16 min for automated external defibrillator delivery.14”

    From Effect of unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) delivery on blood product delivery time and wastage in Rwanda: a retrospective, cross-sectional study and time series analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Methods > Study Design and Results > Flight Time passages concern laboratory specimens and the effect of flight duration on test results. Searches for automated external defibrillators, AED delivery, and a 16-minute median saving found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amukele, T. K., Sokoll, L. J., Pepper, D., Howard, D. P., & Street, J.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • NextGen Aeronautics (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Amukele, Timothy K.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-07-29
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
e0134020
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1631786717
Cited by
139
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9
FWCI
7.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › UAV Applications and Optimization
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
unmanned aerial systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, point-of-care testing, precision, bicarbonate, glucose
MeSH terms
Adult, Aircraft, Blood Coagulation Tests, Feasibility Studies, Female, Hematologic Tests, Humans, Male, Specimen Handling, Time Factors, Phlebotomy, Clinical Chemistry Tests

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