ArticleEJIFCC2020
Can chewing gum be another source of preanalytical variability in fasting outpatients?
Article in EJIFCC, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Non-Laboratory Healthcare Professionals' Attitude towards the Importance of Patient Preparation for Laboratory Tests.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Preanalytical Errors in Clinical Laboratory Testing at a Glance: Source and Control Measures.Cureus · 2024Review
- Errors within the total laboratory testing process, from test selection to medical decision-making - A review of causes, consequences, surveillance and solutions.Biochemia medica · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the daily laboratory practice, there are patients coming to blood collection sites chewing sugar-free gum, considering it irrelevant to laboratory tests. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a sugar-free chewing gum can interfere with laboratory tests.
methodsWe studied 22 healthy volunteers. After a 12-hour overnight fasting, the first blood sample was collected between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. Then, immediately after the first venous blood collection, the subjects started chewing the gum (declared sugar-free) for 20 min. Subsequent venous blood samples were collected at 1, 2, and 4 hours after chewing the gum. Significant differences between samples were assessed by the Wilcoxon ranked-pairs test.
resultsAmong all the results, statistically significant differences (
conclusionsWe recommend instructing the patients to avoid the use of chewing gum before blood collection for laboratory tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32256287PMC7109498W3014801448What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.