Venous blood collection systems using evacuated tubes: a systematic review focusing on safety, efficacy and economic implications of integrated vs. combined systems.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1515/cclm-2024-0460
Marta Rigoni, Francesco Tessarolo
{"title":"Venous blood collection systems using evacuated tubes: a systematic review focusing on safety, efficacy and economic implications of integrated vs. combined systems.","authors":"Marta Rigoni, Francesco Tessarolo","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2024-0460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Venous blood collection systems (VBCSs) are combinations of <i>in-vitro</i> diagnostics and medical devices, usually available as integrated set. However, purchasing and using a combination of devices from different sets is considered by clinical laboratories as an option to achieve specific sampling tasks or reduce costs. This systematic review aimed to retrieve available evidence regarding safety, efficacy, and economic aspects of VBCSs, focusing on differences between integrated and combined systems. The literature review was carried out in PubMed. Cited documents and resources made available by scientific organisations were also screened. Extracted evidence was clustered according to Quality/Efficacy/Performance, Safety, and Costs/Procurement domains and discussed in the current European regulatory framework. Twenty documents published between 2010 and 2021 were included. There was no evidence to suggest equivalence between combined and integrated VBCSs in terms of safety and efficacy. Scientific society's consensus documents and product standards report that combined VBCS can impact operators' and patients' safety. Analytical performances and overall efficacy of combined VBCSs are not guaranteed without whole system validation and verification. EU regulatory framework clearly allocates responsibilities for the validation and verification of an integrated VBCS, but not for combined VBCSs, lacking information about the management of product nonconformities and post-market surveillance. Laboratory validation of combined VBCS demands risk-benefit and cost-benefit analyses, a non-negligible organisational and economic burden, and investment in knowledge acquisition. Implications in terms of laboratory responsibility and legal liability should be part of a comprehensive assessment of safety, efficacy, and cost carried out during device procurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0460","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Venous blood collection systems (VBCSs) are combinations of in-vitro diagnostics and medical devices, usually available as integrated set. However, purchasing and using a combination of devices from different sets is considered by clinical laboratories as an option to achieve specific sampling tasks or reduce costs. This systematic review aimed to retrieve available evidence regarding safety, efficacy, and economic aspects of VBCSs, focusing on differences between integrated and combined systems. The literature review was carried out in PubMed. Cited documents and resources made available by scientific organisations were also screened. Extracted evidence was clustered according to Quality/Efficacy/Performance, Safety, and Costs/Procurement domains and discussed in the current European regulatory framework. Twenty documents published between 2010 and 2021 were included. There was no evidence to suggest equivalence between combined and integrated VBCSs in terms of safety and efficacy. Scientific society's consensus documents and product standards report that combined VBCS can impact operators' and patients' safety. Analytical performances and overall efficacy of combined VBCSs are not guaranteed without whole system validation and verification. EU regulatory framework clearly allocates responsibilities for the validation and verification of an integrated VBCS, but not for combined VBCSs, lacking information about the management of product nonconformities and post-market surveillance. Laboratory validation of combined VBCS demands risk-benefit and cost-benefit analyses, a non-negligible organisational and economic burden, and investment in knowledge acquisition. Implications in terms of laboratory responsibility and legal liability should be part of a comprehensive assessment of safety, efficacy, and cost carried out during device procurement.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用抽真空管的静脉采血系统:一项系统性综述,重点关注集成系统与组合系统的安全性、有效性和经济影响。
静脉采血系统(VBCS)是体外诊断和医疗设备的组合,通常以集成套件的形式提供。然而,临床实验室认为购买和使用不同套装的组合设备是实现特定采样任务或降低成本的一种选择。本系统综述旨在检索有关 VBCS 安全性、有效性和经济性方面的现有证据,重点关注集成系统和组合系统之间的差异。文献综述在 PubMed 上进行。此外,还筛选了科学组织提供的引用文件和资源。提取的证据按照质量/功效/性能、安全性和成本/采购领域进行了分类,并在当前的欧洲监管框架内进行了讨论。其中包括 2010 年至 2021 年间发表的 20 篇文献。在安全性和有效性方面,没有证据表明联合式和集成式 VBCS 之间具有等效性。科学协会的共识文件和产品标准报告称,组合式 VBCS 会影响操作人员和患者的安全。如果没有整个系统的验证和确认,组合式 VBCS 的分析性能和整体功效就无法得到保证。欧盟的监管框架明确规定了综合 VBCS 的验证和核查责任,但没有规定组合 VBCS 的责任,缺乏有关产品不合格管理和上市后监督的信息。组合式 VBCS 的实验室验证需要进行风险效益和成本效益分析,需要承担不可忽视的组织和经济负担,还需要在知识获取方面进行投资。实验室责任和法律责任方面的影响应成为设备采购过程中对安全性、有效性和成本进行全面评估的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically. CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France). Topics: - clinical biochemistry - clinical genomics and molecular biology - clinical haematology and coagulation - clinical immunology and autoimmunity - clinical microbiology - drug monitoring and analysis - evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers - disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes) - new reagents, instrumentation and technologies - new methodologies - reference materials and methods - reference values and decision limits - quality and safety in laboratory medicine - translational laboratory medicine - clinical metrology Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!
期刊最新文献
A vision to the future: value-based laboratory medicine Inaccuracy definition of Bence Jones proteinuria in the EFLM Urinalysis Guideline 2023. Construction of platelet count-optical method reflex test rules using Micro-RBC#, Macro-RBC%, "PLT clumps?" flag, and "PLT abnormal histogram" flag on the Mindray BC-6800plus hematology analyzer in clinical practice. Why is single sample rule out of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T safe when analytical imprecision is so high? A joint statistical and clinical demonstration. Circulating tumor DNA measurement: a new pillar of medical oncology?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1