ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2026
Making every test count: Insights from a test kit efficiency audit.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2026. 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: Clinical laboratories face increasing demand for testing while operating within constrained budgets, necessitating efficient resource utilisation. Test kit efficiency, a key parameter in automated laboratories, refers to the appropriate use of reagent kits in a manner that minimises non-billable tests per kit. Intervention: Manufacturer-supplied monthly test kit efficiency data for 96 chemistry analytes, collected between 01 April and 30 September 2023, were assessed retrospectively and compared with their respective benchmark efficiencies. The findings were further compared to those from a previous audit to assess for an improvement or decline in efficiency. Under-performing analytes identified included total protein in cerebrospinal fluid, alkaline phosphatase, glucose, ferritin, direct bilirubin and vancomycin. Root cause analysis and targeted interventions led to improvements in test kit efficiency of 12.6% - 37.7% for each analyte. Lessons learnt: Auditing test kit efficiency data revealed inefficiencies, allowing targeted interventions to optimise kit use and reduce costs without compromising quality. Efficiency was influenced by analytical performance, test kit size and batching practices, underscoring the importance of data-driven decision-making for workflow optimisation and resource management. The audit revealed challenges with inherently inefficient tests, highlighting the need for tailored solutions based on the population served, reagent stability and sample stability. Recommendations: We recommend regular test kit efficiency audits to reduce wastage, optimise workflow and drive quality improvement. Efficiency data can support identification of problematic assays and guide kit size adjustment and batching strategies, while ensuring initiatives remain patient-centred. However, the lack of standardised regulatory guidelines on test kit utilisation remains a key limitation that requires attention. What this study adds: There is limited published evidence on the use of test kit efficiency data to drive quality improvement in clinical chemistry laboratories. This study demonstrates how systematic auditing can identify modifiable inefficiencies and support evidence-based resource optimisation.
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.