Browsing by Author "Senes, Mehmet"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An important source of preanalytical error in medical laboratories: centrifugation
    (WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH, 2021-01-01) Sonmez, Cigdem; Gumus, Alper; Senes, Mehmet; Aykal, Guzin; Taneli, Fatma; Aksungar, Fehime; Avci, Esin; Coskun, Cihan; Cinaroglu, Ipek; Colak, Ayfer; Eker, Pinar; Gucel, Funda; Hakligor, Aylin; Inal, Berrin Bercik; Orhan, Bagnu; Yilmaz, Canan
    Centrifugation separates particles within the specimen according to their shape, dimensions, and density and basically can be defined as a separation method. The centrifuge is an essential device in medical laboratories to prepare the serum, plasma, and urine samples for analysis. It is basically an electric device composed of the stationary (motor) and the motile (rotor) part. The centrifugation depends on two main variables: relative centrifugal force (RCF) and centrifugation time. The physical impact separating the specimen into its components in the centrifuge known as RCF is expressed as the multiples of gravitational acceleration (xg). RPM, defined as the number of rotations of the centrifuge perminute, shows the speed of the centrifuge. RCF value can be calculated by using RPM, and the centrifuge radius. Because models and sizes of centrifuges vary considerably, the use of gravity (g) forces instead of RPM is suggested. The centrifuges can be classified according to their usage, speed, technical specifications, and rotor type. An accurate and precise centrifugation process is essential to prevent errors in the preanalytical phase. The purpose of this document is to ensure the standardization of a good, precise protocol for the centrifugation process among the medical laboratories.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    National External Quality Assessment follow-up: 2010-2017 Turkish experience
    (WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH, 2019-01-01) Mercan, Ferzane; Serdar, Muhittin A.; Senes, Mehmet; Konukoglu, Dildar; Inal, Tamer Cevat; Alatas, Ozkan; Pinar, Asli; Savci, Ozlem; Guven, Muhammet; Gunduz, Mehmet; Egin, Ertugrul; Tipioglu, Yasal Onder; Tekin, Ahmet; Yucel, Dogan
    Objective: Medical laboratories encounter critical obstacles in External Quality Assessment (EQA) practices that are key to assessment of the analytical period. Present study aims to unveil the challenges in nationwide interlaboratory harmonization and suggest practical solutions. Materials and methods: EQA results of 1941 laboratories participating in 18 different EQA-programs between 2010 and 2017 were examined. Standard Deviation Index (SDI) of each program calculated using 801,028 sample data from 24 different clinical chemical tests were used to conduct a process assessment. Results: There is a significant discrepancy in unsatisfactory performance ratio among different EAQ-programs with an average of 3.4\% (27,074 cases) between 2010 and 2017 and a decreasing trend (similar to 40-50\%) in 7-years. Programs with higher SDI display lower discrepancy rates. Reasons for unaccepted results appear to be data entry errors (8.27-22.2\%), material dilution errors (5-11.4\%), technical problems (3.76-7.9\%)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Utilization of biological variation data in the interpretation of laboratory test results - survey about clinicians' opinion and knowledge
    (CROATIAN SOC MEDICAL BIOCHEMISTRY \& LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2021-01-01) Emre, Humeyra Ozturk; Karpuzoglu, Fatma Hande; Coskun, Cihan; Sezer, Ebru Demirel; Ozturk, Ozlem Goruroglu; Ucar, Fatma; Cubukcu, Hikmet Can; Arslan, Fatma Demet; Deniz, Levent; Senes, Mehmet; Serteser, Mustafa; Yazici, Cevat; Yucel, Dogan; Coskun, Abdurrahman
    Introduction: To interpret test results correctly, understanding of the variations that affect test results is essential. The aim of this study is: 1) to evaluate the clinicians' knowledge and opinion concerning biological variation (BV), and 2) to investigate if clinicians use BV in the interpretation of test results. Materials and methods: This study uses a questionnaire comprising open-ended and close-ended questions. Questions were selected from the real-life numerical examples of interpretation of test results, the knowledge about main sources of variations in laboratories and the opinion of clinicians on BV. A total of 399 clinicians were interviewed, and the answers were evaluated using a scoring system ranked from A (clinician has the highest level of knowledge and the ability of using BV data) to D (clinician has no knowledge about variations in laboratory). The results were presented as number (N) and percentage (\%). Results: Altogether, 60.4\% of clinicians have knowledge of pre-analytical and analytical variations