ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Integrating Lean Six Sigma into Microbiology Laboratories: Insights from a Literature Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesClinical laboratories are fundamental to healthcare systems, contributing to over 70% of clinical decisions while accounting for only 2-3% of hospital budgets. Among them, microbiology laboratories provide critical information that directly influences patient outcomes and satisfaction. This study presents a structured review of the current state of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation in microbiology and comparable laboratory environments. The objective is to identify relevant contributions within the state of the art to highlight potential benefits applicable to microbiology laboratories and to detect persistent gaps and unresolved needs.
methodsA systematic literature review was performed across six databases (Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed, and Google Scholar) to identify studies published between 2012 and September 2024. After screening, 33 studies were selected for full-text analysis.
resultsThe selected literature was analyzed to assess the extent to which LSS methodologies have been applied in microbiology laboratories. Particular attention was given to the definition and use of key performance indicators (KPIs). While industry-adapted metrics such as cost reduction and turnaround time are commonly employed, clinical indicators, such as patient impact, satisfaction, and diagnostic accuracy, are underutilized. Additionally, the analysis revealed a frequent omission of the control phase in LSS projects, limiting long-term process monitoring. The review also identifies the most suitable LSS tools and evaluates how laboratories manage interruptions in routine workflows.
conclusionsFuture research should prioritize the integration of clinical KPIs into LSS frameworks, establish robust control phases for sustained monitoring, and systematically address the impact of process interruptions on optimization efforts.
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.