Suppr超能文献

条形码技术在减少患者标本和实验室检测识别错误方面的有效性:一项实验室医学最佳实践系统评价和荟萃分析。

Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, Century Plaza 1, 2987 Clairmont Road, NE - Suite 450, Atlanta, GA 30329‐4448, USA.

出版信息

Clin Biochem. 2012 Sep;45(13-14):988-98. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.019. Epub 2012 Jun 28.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of barcoding practices for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used.

RESULTS

A total of 17 observational studies reporting on barcoding systems are included in the body of evidence; 10 for patient specimens and 7 for point-of-care testing. All 17 studies favored barcoding, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for barcoding systems of 4.39 (95% CI: 3.05-6.32) and for point-of-care testing of 5.93 (95% CI: 5.28-6.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Barcoding is effective for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based "best practice." The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size rating is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.

摘要

目的

这是首个系统综述,旨在评估条码技术在减少患者标本和实验室检测鉴定错误方面的有效性。

设计和方法

采用美国疾病预防控制中心(CDC)资助的实验室医学最佳实践倡议(Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative)质量改进实践系统综述方法。

结果

共有 17 项观察性研究报告了条码系统的情况,其中 10 项涉及患者标本,7 项涉及即时检测。所有 17 项研究均支持条码技术,条码系统的荟萃分析平均优势比为 4.39(95%可信区间:3.05-6.32),即时检测的平均优势比为 5.93(95%可信区间:5.28-6.67)。

结论

条码技术在不同医院环境中有效减少患者标本和实验室检测鉴定错误,推荐将其作为基于证据的“最佳实践”。证据总体强度评级高,效果大小评级显著。未发表的研究做出了重要贡献,占证据体的近一半。

相似文献

3
Effectiveness of practices to reduce blood culture contamination: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clin Biochem. 2012 Sep;45(13-14):999-1011. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jun 16.
6
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
7
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
8
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
9
Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis.
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(62):1-155. doi: 10.3310/MKRT2948.
10
The effectiveness of patient navigation programs for adult cancer patients undergoing treatment: a systematic review.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Feb;14(2):295-321. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2324.

引用本文的文献

1
Enhancing preanalytic surgical specimen management: experience of a system implementation initiative.
Diagn Pathol. 2025 Jul 31;20(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s13000-025-01690-7.
2
Application Effectiveness of a Pre-Analytical Quality Management Pathway Based on the Structure-Process-Outcome Model.
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2025 Mar 17;18:1571-1579. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S486258. eCollection 2025.
4
Raman Metabolomics of Clades: Profiling and Barcode Identification.
Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Oct 3;23(19):11736. doi: 10.3390/ijms231911736.
8
Changes in error rates in the Australian key incident monitoring and management system program.
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2020 Jun 15;30(2):020704. doi: 10.11613/BM.2020.020704. Epub 2020 Apr 15.
9
Review of 128 quality of care mechanisms: A framework and mapping for health system stewards.
Health Policy. 2020 Jan;124(1):12-24. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.11.006. Epub 2019 Nov 23.

本文引用的文献

1
Observational studies in systematic [corrected] reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Nov;64(11):1178-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.027. Epub 2011 Jun 1.
2
Laboratory medicine best practices: systematic evidence review and evaluation methods for quality improvement.
Clin Chem. 2011 Jun;57(6):816-25. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.157131. Epub 2011 Apr 22.
3
Identification errors in the blood transfusion laboratory: a still relevant issue for patient safety.
Transfus Apher Sci. 2011 Apr;44(2):231-3. doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2011.01.021. Epub 2011 Feb 15.
4
7
'Wrong blood in tube': solutions for a persistent problem.
Vox Sang. 2011 Apr;100(3):298-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2010.01391.x. Epub 2010 Aug 25.
8
Specimen labeling errors in surgical pathology: an 18-month experience.
Am J Clin Pathol. 2010 Sep;134(3):466-70. doi: 10.1309/AJCPHLQHJ0S3DFJK.
9
Patient misidentifications caused by errors in standard bar code technology.
Clin Chem. 2010 Oct;56(10):1554-60. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.150094. Epub 2010 Aug 11.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验