ArticleIranian journal of public health2025
Optimizing Laboratory Processes: A Path to Reduced Sample Rejection in Oncology.
Article in Iranian journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An optimized EfficientNetB7 deep learning model for lung cancer tissue pathology image recognition.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Innovation Culture in Oncology (IC-O) Scale: Psychometric Development and Validation Among Healthcare Professionals at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Oman.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Using FMEA to Reduce the Risk of Delayed Reporting of Critical Radiological Results in Oncology: A Patient Safety Initiative.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Optimizing Chemotherapy Waiting Time in the Day Care Unit for Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients: A Lean Six Sigma Approach.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Improving the Timely Reporting of Critical Radiological Results in Oncology to Enhance Patient Safety (A Quality Improvement Initiative at SQCCCRC).Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to enhance the quality of cancer care by reducing the rate of sample rejection and lowering the incidence of sample mislabeling at the Sultan Qaboos Comprehensive Cancer Care and Research Centre in Muscat, Oman. Methods: We adopted a one-group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design from the second quarter of 2022 to the first quarter of 2023, assessing key performance indicators related to sample rejection and mislabeling on quarterly basis before and after implementing targeted interventions. The project utilized the FOCUS PDCA framework for systematic implementation and evaluation. Four FOCUS PDCA sessions were conducted involving a multidisciplinary team of ten participants comprising oncologists, nurses, laboratory technicians, quality management experts, and informatics and cyber security department staff. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Board, ensuring adherence to ethical protocols. Interventions included five educational sessions for nurses and physicians, process modifications, and improved communication protocols. Results: Analysis revealed a significant decrease in the rate of rejected samples, declining from 20.85% during Pre-Intervention to 6.05% in the Post Intervention phase. Similarly, the mislabeling rate exhibited a substantial reduction, decreasing from 1.68% to 0.25% over the same period. Statistical analysis using ANOVA confirmed significant differences between intervention phases for both the rejected samples rate (F-value = 12.3458, Conclusion: These results underscored the effectiveness of the interventions in improving blood sample collection and management processes, thereby enhancing the reliability of study outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.