↓ Skip to main content

Preanalytical conditions of point-of-care testing in the intensive care unit are decisive for analysis reliability

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Preanalytical conditions of point-of-care testing in the intensive care unit are decisive for analysis reliability
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0152-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrien Auvet, Fabien Espitalier, Leslie Grammatico-Guillon, Mai-Anh Nay, Djilali Elaroussi, Marc Laffon, Christian R. Andres, Annick Legras, Stephan Ehrmann, Pierre-François Dequin, Chantal Gendrot, Antoine Guillon

Abstract

Point-of-care testing (POCT) systems enable a wide range of tests to be rapidly performed at the bedside and have attracted increasing interest in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, previous studies comparing the concordance of POCT with central laboratory testing have reported divergent findings. Most reported studies on POCT reliability have focused on analyzer performance rather than the preanalytical phase. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of results provided by point-of-care analyzers according to the organization of the care units and the preanalytical process. In three adult critical care units, 491 paired blood samples were analyzed for hemoglobin, potassium, and sodium concentrations by blood gas analyzers (identical reference) and the central laboratory. The clinical significance of agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. A quality improvement program was then implemented to improve the preanalytical POCT process for one ICU where there was poor agreement. A second comparison was performed on 278 paired blood samples in this unit. Biases were clinically nonsignificant for potassium and sodium concentrations for all tested critical care units, relative to the reference method. However, biases [limits of agreements] for hemoglobin analyses were clearly affected by the preanalytical process: -3 [-6; 1] g/L in the operating room, -5 [-28; 17] g/L in a 10-bed ICU, and -19 [-64; 27] g/L in a 37-bed ICU. The quality approach was implemented in the 37-bed ICU and led to corrective actions that: (1) reduced the time for the POCT preanalytical phase; (2) implemented a checklist to validate the preanalytical conditions; (3) used technical innovations. The improvement of the preanalytical process resulted in a substantial decrease of the bias for hemoglobin concentration measurements: -3 [-10; 5] g/L in the 37-bed ICU. We clearly demonstrate that an identical analyzer can provide results of varying quality depending on the local constraints of the ICUs. We demonstrate that quality management focused on the preanalytical process and performed by the partners involved in the POCT can overcome these issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Other 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,379,002
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#828
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,171
of 352,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#27
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.