2018
DOI: 10.5935/1676-2444.20180040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of the pre-analytical phase of a clinical analyses laboratory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…( Table 3) Sigma values above 4 were taken as good performance levels while those between 3 and 4 were regarded as average performance. A sigma value below 3 was interpreted as unacceptable performance level (Martins, Rateke & Martinello. 2018& Giménez-Marín, 2014 All the indicators had unacceptable performance levels, except for samples in inappropriate containers and those damaged in transport, which had an average performance level and samples haemolysed and those clotted which had good performance.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…( Table 3) Sigma values above 4 were taken as good performance levels while those between 3 and 4 were regarded as average performance. A sigma value below 3 was interpreted as unacceptable performance level (Martins, Rateke & Martinello. 2018& Giménez-Marín, 2014 All the indicators had unacceptable performance levels, except for samples in inappropriate containers and those damaged in transport, which had an average performance level and samples haemolysed and those clotted which had good performance.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%