Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Data Validation01:15

Data Validation

282
Method validation is a crucial process in analytical chemistry designed to confirm that a given method consistently produces reliable and high-quality results. This process is essential when a method is applied to different sample matrices or when procedural modifications are made, ensuring that the results meet acceptable standards across various applications.
Key parameters for method validation include:
282
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

3.4K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
3.4K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

361
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
361
Contaminants and Errors01:16

Contaminants and Errors

161
Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable laboratory analysis. During this process, two significant sources of error can arise: concentration bias from improper sample splitting and contamination caused by methods used to reduce particle size, such as grinding or homogenization. Identifying and minimizing these potential errors is crucial to ensuring the validity of the analysis.
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
161
Quality Control01:05

Quality Control

361
Quality control is one of the three cyclical quality assurance activities that help keep a system under statistical control. Typical quality control activities include creating quality control charts, conducting proficiency testing, and documenting and archiving results.
Quality control helps track data, visualize trends, and identify variations, making it easier to detect deviations that may affect the accuracy of an analysis. One way to do this is by generating a quality control chart, which...
361
Quality Assurance01:19

Quality Assurance

247
Quality assurance is the overarching term used to describe the activities employed to ensure the proper performance of a system. These activities can be classified into three categories: quality control, quality assessment, and internal corrective measures. Typically, these activities work cyclically: quality control is performed before and during the analysis, while quality assessment occurs during and after the investigation. Internal corrective measures are implemented based on the findings...
247

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Towards an evaluation framework for Laboratory Information Systems.

Journal of infection and public health·2016
Same journal

Endocrine effect of ghrelin on histological, hormonal and morphometric parameters of the pituitary gland and the possibility of its clinical application.

Journal of medical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Impact of dalteparin sodium and luteal phase support on serum markers, interleukins, and pregnancy outcomes in patients with in vitro fertilisation failure.

Journal of medical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy in adult sepsis: A biochemical perspective from a retrospective cohort study.

Journal of medical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Serum CEA, CA19-9, and AFP as biomarkers for gastric cancer.

Journal of medical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Challenges in interpreting leukocyte and nucleated red blood cell counts in neonatal hemolytic disease: A case report on hematology analyser performance.

Journal of medical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Paraoxonase-1 activity and AOPP levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Journal of medical biochemistry·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 30, 2025

Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Analyzer for Measuring Peripheral Blood Leukocytes
05:58

Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Analyzer for Measuring Peripheral Blood Leukocytes

Published on: March 22, 2022

4.2K

Error evaluation in the laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems.

Azila Arifin1, Maryati Mohd-Yusof1

  • 1University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.

Journal of Medical Biochemistry
|March 16, 2022
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Identifying errors in laboratory information systems (LIS) and the total testing process is crucial for patient safety. This study found that system development issues, poor IT-lab cooperation, and user motivation impact LIS and testing accuracy.

Keywords:
Leancase studyerrorevaluationframeworklaboratory information systemspatient safetysocio-technicaltotal testing process

More Related Videos

Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System
05:33

Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System

Published on: July 11, 2025

329
Remote Laboratory Management: Respiratory Virus Diagnostics
14:56

Remote Laboratory Management: Respiratory Virus Diagnostics

Published on: April 6, 2019

33.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 30, 2025

Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Analyzer for Measuring Peripheral Blood Leukocytes
05:58

Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Analyzer for Measuring Peripheral Blood Leukocytes

Published on: March 22, 2022

4.2K
Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System
05:33

Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System

Published on: July 11, 2025

329
Remote Laboratory Management: Respiratory Virus Diagnostics
14:56

Remote Laboratory Management: Respiratory Virus Diagnostics

Published on: April 6, 2019

33.2K

Area of Science:

  • Medical Laboratory Science
  • Health Informatics
  • Quality Management in Healthcare

Background:

  • Laboratory testing involves complex processes prone to errors.
  • Laboratory Information Systems (LIS) are integral to these processes but can be affected by errors.
  • A framework integrating the total testing process and LIS is needed to identify error factors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify error factors in the laboratory testing process and LIS use.
  • To analyze errors in the initial and final phases of laboratory testing.
  • To evaluate the effectiveness of the total testing process-laboratory information systems framework.

Main Methods:

  • A qualitative case study was conducted in two hospitals and one medical laboratory.
  • Data collection involved interviews, observations, and document analysis with healthcare professionals and lab staff.
  • The proposed framework and Lean tools (Value Stream Mapping, A3) were used for analysis.

Main Results:

  • Errors stemmed from unmet user requirements, poor IT-laboratory collaboration, inconsistent software integration, data transmission issues, and low system motivation.
  • Latent failures in system development significantly impacted information quality and system use.
  • Poor service quality was also linked to errors in system development.

Conclusions:

  • Rigorous evaluation of complex laboratory testing and LIS is essential for error reduction and patient safety.
  • The proposed framework and Lean approach offer a structured method for evaluating laboratory processes and LIS.
  • This approach ensures a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation.