Policies and practices in the field of laboratory hematology in Croatia - a current overview and call for improvement.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019 The Croatian Working Group for Laboratory Hematology, on behalf of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine, wanted to explore the background in field of laboratory hematology routine practice among Croatian laboratories in order to develop future strategies for producing national recommendations, if needed. METHODS: During April and May 2019, a comprehensive survey covering all main parts of the total testing process within the field of laboratory hematology among Croatian medical laboratories was conducted. The survey comprised 49 inquiries. Data was collected using Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA, USA). All collected data was anonymized. RESULTS: The response rate was 72%. There is still a substantial number of laboratories that have only three-part differential hematology analyzers (9%). Furthermore, a very high number of laboratories did not perform analyzer verification prior to implementation into routine work (31%). Out of those who have verified their analyzers, a diversity of guidelines and recommendations were used. Nearly 10% of the laboratories do not have a defined policy regarding specimen rejection. The majority of the participants perform internal quality control daily (83%), however, only 51% of respondents evaluate the agreement between different hematology analyzers on daily basis. Although more than 90% of Croatian laboratories have a defined policy regarding specimen rejection, only 61% of respondents continuously monitor quality indicators in routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: The survey revealed substantial differences in all aspects of laboratory hematology practices among Croatian medical laboratories, indicating the need for universal recommendations at the national level.

Planned home birth in Slovenia-Are we ready?

Nowadays, women want a more intimate and familiar atmosphere during labour, which results in increased planned home birth rates. Every woman has the autonomy to decide where she will give birth; however, it is important that she is informed of risks and advantages beforehand. Home births can be distinguished between planned and unplanned home births. Planned home births can be conducted by professional birth attendants (licensed midwives) or birth assistants (doulas, etc). The rates of Slovenian women who decided to deliver at home are increasing year by year. Researches on home births still present discordant data about home birth safety. Their findings have shown that the main advantage of home birth is a spontaneous birth without medical interventions, especially in multiparous low-risk women. The main disadvantage, however, is a higher risk for neonatal death, in particular on occurrence of complications requiring a transfer to hospital and surgical intervention. Global guidelines emphasize careful selection of candidates suitable for home birth, well-informed pregnant women, education of birth attendants, and strict formation of transfer indications.

An Analysis of Medical Laboratory Technology Journals' Instructions for Authors.

Instructions for authors (IFA) need to be informative and regularly updated. We hypothesized that journals with a higher impact factor (IF) have more comprehensive IFA. The aim of the study was to examine whether IFA of journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports 2013, "Medical Laboratory Technology" category, are written in accordance with the latest recommendations and whether the quality of instructions correlates with the journals' IF. 6 out of 31 journals indexed in "Medical Laboratory Technology" category were excluded (unsuitable or unavailable instructions). The remaining 25 journals were scored based on a set of 41 yes/no questions (score 1/0) and divided into four groups (editorial policy, research ethics, research integrity, manuscript preparation) by three authors independently (max score = 41). We tested the correlation between IF and total score and the difference between scores in separate question groups. The median total score was 26 (21-30) [portion of positive answers 0.63 (0.51-0.73)]. There was no statistically significant correlation between a journal's IF and the total score (rho = 0.291, P = 0.159). IFA included recommendations concerning research ethics and manuscript preparation more extensively than recommendations concerning editorial policy and research integrity (Ht = 15.91, P = 0.003). Some policies were poorly described (portion of positive answers), for example: procedure for author's appeal (0.04), editorial submissions (0.08), appointed body for research integrity issues (0.08). The IF of the "Medical Laboratory Technology" journals does not reflect a journals' compliance to uniform standards. There is a need for improving editorial policies and the policies on research integrity.

The band count imprecision - a Croatian multicentric pilot study.

Introduction: Due to high inter-observer variability the 2015 International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) recommendations state to count band neutrophils as segmented neutrophils in the white blood cell (WBC) differential. However, the inclusion of bands as a separate cell entity within the WBC differential is still widely used in hematology laboratories in Croatia. The aim of this multicentric study was to assess the degree of inter-observer variability in enumerating band neutrophils within the WBC differential among Croatian laboratories. Materials and methods: Seven large Croatian hospital laboratories from different parts of the country participated in the study. In each of 7 participating laboratories, one blood smear, that was flagged by the analyzer as possibly having bands, was evaluated by all personnel participating in the analysis of hematology samples. Between-observer manual smear reproducibility was expressed as coefficient of variation (CV) and calculated using the following formula: CV (%) = (standard deviation (SD)/mean value) x 100%. Results: The CVs (%) and relative band neutrophil counts in participating laboratories were as follows: 15.4% (16-24), 19.2% (16-32), 19.5% (17-40), 21.1% (17-44), 35.0% (8-26), 51.9% (3-29), and remarkably high 62.4% (12-59). For segmented neutrophils CVs were lower, ranging from 7.4% to 32.2%. The CVs did not correlate with the number of staff members in each hospital (P = 0.293). Conclusions: This study revealed very high variability in enumerating band neutrophil count in the blood smear differential among all participants, thus prompting a need for action on a national level.

Title does matter: a cross-sectional study of 30 journals in the Medical Laboratory Technology category.

INTRODUCTION: First impression on potential readers is created by the title; therefore, authors should give importance to the title structure. The aim of this study was to establish whether articles created by a smaller number of authors and with shorter, descriptive or declarative titles gain more citations and whether article title length and number of authors correlate to the number of citations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study on article citation data for 30 scientific journals published in 2016 in Medical Laboratory Technology field according to Web of Science database was conducted. The type of article, type of title, as well as number of words in the title and number of authors was recorded. RESULTS: In the group of original articles (N = 2623), articles with declarative titles (N = 336, 13%) showed statistically higher number of citations in multiple comparison analysis when compared to descriptive titles (P < 0.001). No correlation was found between number of citations and title word count (r = 0.07, P < 0.001) nor between number of citations and number of authors in group of original articles (r = 0.09, P < 0.001). Original articles with descriptive titles longer than 15 words or with more than six authors are cited more (P = 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Based on results of our study, titles do matter. Therefore, authors of original articles might want to consider including their findings in the title and having longer titles.

Informed consent and ethics committee approval in laboratory medicine.

Informed consent is a process in which a human subject who is to participate in research needs to give his or her consent after being properly informed of the expected benefits as well as the potential harm of the research that will be performed. The function and purpose of the research ethics committee is to ensure that the research that will take place is in accordance with the relevant ethical standards. This means that the committee must assess the appropriateness of the design of the study reviewed. Research in the field of laboratory medicine has specific features, i.e. the use of samples that remain after routine analysis, data collection from databases containing patient information, data mining, collection of laboratory management data, method/instrument comparisons and validation, etc. As most of such research is either retrospective or not directly associated with patients, the question arises as to whether all types of research require informed consent and ethics committee approval. This article aims to clarify what is specific about obtaining informed consent and ethical approval in laboratory medicine, to provide general guidance on informed consent and ethical approval requirements based on the type of study, and what information should be included in applications for ethical approval and informed consent. This could also provide some guidance for future contributors to the Biochemia Medica.

Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results.

Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative results, producing so-called publication bias. This review aims to discuss occurring problems around negative results and to emphasize the importance of reporting negative results. Underreporting of negative results introduces bias into meta-analysis, which consequently misinforms researchers, doctors and policymakers. More resources are potentially wasted on already disputed research that remains unpublished and therefore unavailable to the scientific community. Ethical obligations need to be considered when reporting results of studies on human subjects as people have exposed themselves to risk with the assurance that the study is performed to benefit others. Some studies disprove the common conception that journal editors preferably publish positive findings, which are considered as more citable. Therefore, all stakeholders, but especially researchers, need to be conscious of disseminating negative and positive findings alike.

ICMJE authorship criteria are not met in a substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to investigate if: (a) authors of Biochemia Medica meet authorship criteria given by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), (b) authorship violations are more frequent in submissions containing some type of scientific misconduct. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Self-reported authorship contributions regarding the three ICMJE criteria were analysed for all submissions to Biochemia Medica (February 2013-April 2015) which were forwarded to peer-review. To test the differences in frequencies we used Chi-squared test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 186 manuscripts were authored by 804 authors. All ICMJE criteria were met by 487/804 (61%) authors. The first and the last author met all the criteria more frequently than those authors in between (P<0.001). The degree to which ICMJE criteria was met for the first author did not differ between manuscripts authored by only one author and those authored by >1 author (P=0.859). In 9% of the manuscripts ICMJE criteria were not met by a single author. Authors of the 171/186 manuscripts declared that all persons qualify for authorship but only 49% of them satisfied all ICMJE criteria. Authors have failed to acknowledge contributors in 88/186 (47%) manuscripts; instead these contributors have been listed as authors without fulfilling ICMJE criteria. Authorship violation was not more common in 42 manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct (P=0.135). CONCLUSION: Large proportion of authors of the manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica do not fulfil ICMJE criteria. Violation of authorship criteria is not more common for manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct.