Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust

Open access
Lippi, Giuseppe, Becan-McBride, Kathleen, Behúlová, Darina, Bowen, Raffick A., Church, Stephen, Delanghe, Joris, Grankvist, Kjell, Kitchen, Steve, Nybo, Mads, Nauck, Matthias, Nikolac, Nora, Palicka, Vladimir, Plebani, Mario, Sandberg, Sverre, Simundic, Ana-Maria·2013·Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Abstract

Total quality in laboratory medicine should be defined as the guarantee that each activity throughout the total testing process is correctly performed, providing valuable medical decision-making and effective patient care. In the past decades, a 10-fold reduction in the analytical error rate has been achieved thanks to improvements in both reliability and standardization of analytical techniques, reagents, and instrumentation. Notable advances in information technology, quality control and quality assurance methods have also assured a valuable contribution for reducing diagnostic errors. Nevertheless, several lines of evidence still suggest that most errors in laboratory diagnostics fall outside the analytical phase, and the pre- and postanalytical steps have been found to be much more vulnerable. This collective paper, which is the logical continuum of the former already published in this journal 2 years ago, provides additional contribution to risk management in the preanalytical phase and is a synopsis of the lectures of the 2nd European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)-Becton Dickinson (BD) European Conference on Preanalytical Phase meeting entitled “Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust” (Zagreb, Croatia, 1–2 March 2013). The leading topics that will be discussed include quality indicators for preanalytical phase, phlebotomy practices for collection of blood gas analysis and pediatric samples, lipemia and blood collection tube interferences, preanalytical requirements of urinalysis, molecular biology hemostasis and platelet testing, as well as indications on best practices for safe blood collection. Auditing of the preanalytical phase by ISO assessors and external quality assessment for preanalytical phase are also discussed.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/cclm-2012-0597

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Lippi, G., Becan-McBride, K., Behúlová, D., Bowen, R. A., Church, S., Delanghe, J., Grankvist, K., Kitchen, S., Nybo, M., Nauck, M., Nikolac, N., Palicka, V., Plebani, M., Sandberg, S., & Simundic, A.-M.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Published
2012-10-16
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
229-241
ISSN
  • 1434-6621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1437-4331
OpenAlex
W2031921792
Cited by
236
References
2
FWCI
15.28
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: Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/cclm-2012-0597
The paper
Lippi, G., Becan-McBride, K., Behúlová, D., Bowen, R. A., Church, S., Delanghe, J., Grankvist, K., Kitchen, S., Nybo, M., Nauck, M., Nikolac, N., Palicka, V., Plebani, M., Sandberg, S., & Simundic, A.-M. (2013). Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM). https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0597

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.