The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Errors in a Stat Laboratory: Types and Frequencies 10 Years Later
Open accessAbstract
Background: In view of increasing attention focused on patient safety and the need to reduce laboratory errors, it is important that clinical laboratories collect statistics on error occurrence rates over the whole testing cycle, including pre-, intra-, and postanalytical phases. Methods: The present study was conducted in 2006 according to the design we previously used in 1996 to monitor the error rates for laboratory testing in 4 different departments (internal medicine, nephrology, surgery, and intensive care). For 3 months, physicians and nurses were asked to pay careful attention to all test results. Any suspected laboratory error was recorded with associated pertinent clinical information. Every day, a laboratory physician visited the 4 departments and a critical appraisal was made of any suspect results. Results: Among a total of 51 746 analyses, clinicians notified us of 393 questionable findings, 160 of which were confirmed as laboratory errors. The overall frequency of errors, 3092 ppm, was significantly lower (P <0.05) than in 1996 (4700 ppm). Of the 160 confirmed errors, 61.9% were preanalytical errors, 15% were analytical, and 23.1% were postanalytical. Conclusions: During the last decade the error rates in our stat laboratory have been reduced significantly. As demonstrated by the distribution pattern, the pre- and postanalytical steps still have the highest error prevalences, but changes have occurred in the types and frequencies of errors in these phases of testing.
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
Cites
Bonini, P., Plebani, M., Ceriotti, F., & Rubboli, F. (2002) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/48.5.691 · Cited by 850
Self-citationComputer Technology and Clinical Work: Still Waiting for Godot
Wears, R. L., & Berg, M. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1261 · Cited by 448
Cited by
Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories
Lippi, G., Blanckaert, N., Bonini, P., Green, S., Kitchen, S., Palicka, V., Vassault, A. J., & Plebani, M. (2008) · Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1515/cclm.2008.170 · Cited by 466
Self-citationNeurofilament ELISA validation
Petzold, A., Altintas, A., Andreoni, L., Bartos, A., Berthele, A., Blankenstein, M. A., Buee, L., Castellazzi, M., Cepok, S., Comabella, M., et al. (2010) · Journal of Immunological Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jim.2009.09.014 · Cited by 105
Does 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-citationPhlebotomy, a bridge between laboratory and patient
Ialongo, C., & Bernardini, S. (2016) · Biochemia Medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2016.002 · Cited by 97
Cornes, 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Carraro, P., & Plebani, M.
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-07-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1338-1342
- ISSN
- 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8561
- OpenAlex
- W2120933898
- Cited by
- 670
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Errors in a Stat Laboratory: Types and Frequencies 10 Years Later. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2007.088344
- The paper
- Carraro, P., & Plebani, M. (2007). Errors in a Stat Laboratory: Types and Frequencies 10 Years Later. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.088344
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.