RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors
A laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis
Snyder, S. R., Favoretto, A. M., Derzon, J. H., Christenson, R. H., Kahn, S. E., Shaw, C. S., Baetz, R. A., Mass, D., Fantz, C. R., Raab, S. S., Tanasijevic, M. J., & Liebow, E. B. (2012). Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: A laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Biochemistry, 45(13-14), 988-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.019
Objectives: This is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of barcoding practices for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors.
Design and methods: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used.
Results: A total of 17 observational studies reporting on barcoding systems are included in the body of evidence; 10 for patient specimens and 7 for point-of-care testing. All 17 studies favored barcoding, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for barcoding systems of 4.39 (95% CI: 3.05-6.32) and for point-of-care testing of 5.93 (95% CI: 5.28-6.67).
Conclusions: Barcoding is effective for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based "best practice." The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size rating is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.
Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR). (C) 2012 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.