These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Sodium citrate vacuum tubes validation: preventing preanalytical variability in routine coagulation testing.
    Author: Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Picheth G, Guidi GC.
    Journal: Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis; 2013 Apr; 24(3):252-5. PubMed ID: 23160241.
    Abstract:
    Sometimes in-vitro diagnostic devices (e.g. blood collection tubes) are not validated before use or when the producer's brand is changed. The aim of this study was to validate five brands of sodium citrate vacuum tubes. Blood specimens from 50 volunteers were collected in five different tube brands (I: Venosafe, II: VACUETTE, III: BD Vacutainer, IV: LABOR IMPORT and V: S-Monovette). Routine coagulation tests [activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), prothrombin time (PT), and fibrinogen (FIB)] were performed on ACL TOP instrument using HemosIL reagents. The significance of the differences between samples was assessed by paired Student's t-test, set at P < 0.005. Significant differences were observed for: PT when comparing I vs. II, I vs. III, I vs. V, II vs. III, II vs. IV, II vs. V, III vs. IV, III vs. V and IV vs. V; aPTT when comparing I vs. II, I vs. III, I vs. IV, II vs. IV, III vs. IV and IV vs. V. No differences were observed among brands for FIB determination. We suggest that every laboratory management should both standardize the procedures and frequently evaluate the quality of in-vitro diagnostic devices.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]