Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCadamuro, Janne
dc.contributor.authorLippi, Giuseppe
dc.contributor.authorvon Meyer, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorIbarz Escuer, Mercedes
dc.contributor.authorvan Dongen–Lases, Edmee
dc.contributor.authorCornes, Michael
dc.contributor.authorNybo, Mads
dc.contributor.authorVermeersch, Pieter
dc.contributor.authorGrankvist, Kjell
dc.contributor.authorGuimaraes, Joao Tiago
dc.contributor.authorKristensen, Gunn B.
dc.contributor.authorde la Salle, Barbara
dc.contributor.authorSimundic, Ana-Maria
dc.identifier.issn1846-7482 (Online)
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Compared to other activities of the testing process, the preanalytical phase is plagued by a lower degree of standardization, which makes it more vulnerable to errors. With the aim of providing guidelines and recommendations, the EFLM WG-PRE issued a survey across European medical laboratories, to gather information on local preanalytical practices. This is part one of two coherent articles, which covers all practices on monitoring preanalytical quality except haemolysis, icterus and lipemia (HIL). Materials and methods: An online survey, containing 39 questions dealing with a broad spectrum of preanalytical issues, was disseminated to EFLM member countries. The survey included questions on willingness of laboratories to engage in preanalytical issues. Results: Overall, 1405 valid responses were received from 37 countries. 1265 (94%) responders declared to monitor preanalytical errors. Assessment, documentation and further use of this information varied widely among respondents and partially among countries. Many responders were interested in a preanalytical online platform, holding information on various aspects of the preanalytical phase (N = 1177; 87%), in a guideline for measurement and evaluation of preanalytical variables (N = 1235; 92%), and in preanalytical e-learning programs or webinars (N = 1125; 84%). Fewer responders were interested in, or already participating in, preanalytical EQA programs (N = 951; 71%). Conclusion: Although substantial heterogeneity was found across European laboratories on preanalytical phase monitoring, the interest in preanalytical issues was high. A large majority of participants indicated an interest in new guidelines regarding preanalytical variables and learning activities. This important data will be used by the WG-PRE for providing recommendations on the most critical issues.ca_ES
dc.publisherCroatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicineca_ES
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a
dc.relation.ispartofBiochemia Medica, 2019, vol. 29, núm. 2ca_ES
dc.rightscc-by, (c) Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry, 2018ca_ES
dc.titleEuropean survey on preanalytical sample handling – Part 1: How do European laboratories monitor the preanalytical phase? On behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)ca_ES

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

cc-by, (c) Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry, 2018
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as cc-by, (c) Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry, 2018