Croatian laboratories have a good knowledge of the proper detection and management of hemolyzed, icteric and lipemic samples.

BACKGROUND: Endogenous interferences are an important source of biased laboratory results. Hemolysis, lipemia and icteria are the main source of endogenous interference in laboratory medicine. Accreditation according to ISO 15189 improves the overall quality of the laboratory procedures. The aim of our study was i) to assess the level of knowledge of Croatian medical biochemists about the proper detection and management of hemolysis, lipemia and icteria; and ii) to identify possible differences in the level of knowledge respective to the laboratory accreditation status. METHODS: An on-line self-report survey was carried out by the Working Group for Preanalytical Phase of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine during April to May 2015. Survey included 14 statements (Q1-Q14) about procedures for samples with interferences and participants were asked to assess the degree of agreement with the statement using a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The lowest level of knowledge was observed for statements Q10 (dealing with icteric sample; 40.9% participants agreed with the correct procedure), Q12 (allowable error for interference; 47.2%) and Q11 (dealing with lipemic sample; 60.1%). Almost all participants (97.4%) agreed that laboratories in Croatia should have a harmonized protocol for management of samples with interferences. Participants from accredited laboratories showed higher knowledge of hemolysis detection (p=0.031), rejection of hemolyzed sample (p<0.001), management of icteric samples (p=0.038) and allowable error for interferences (p=0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Croatian laboratories have a good knowledge of the proper detection and management of hemolyzed, icteric and lipemic samples. Accreditation is associated with higher knowledge about management of samples with interferences.

Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica Journal.

Peer review is widely used system for evaluating manuscripts prior to publication. It has been and still is widely used tool for making justified and fair editorial decision. However, the evidence of its efficacy is limited and it has been criticized to be time-consuming, biased, inconsistent, conservative, and open to abuse. As a result, researchers, editors and policymakers have questioned its objectivity and purpose. Nevertheless, this should not be the reason for abandoning the principles of peer review, but to make the additional efforts towards its improvement. Therefore, this Research Integrity Corner aims to describe basic principles of peer review and to introduce Biochemia Medica's guidelines for peer reviewers. Our intention is to help our peer reviewers provide evaluations that are as fair and objective as possible, while helping the journal publish innovative research of the highest quality.