Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

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

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

Author information

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

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 Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.

Copyright © 2012 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. All rights reserved.

Comment in

PMID:
22750145
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Health
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk