Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesThis is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of barcoding practices for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors.Design and methodsThe CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used.ResultsA total of 17 observational studies reporting on barcoding systems are included in the body of evidence; 10 for patient specimens and 7 for point-of-care testing. All 17 studies favored barcoding, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for barcoding systems of 4.39 (95% CI: 3.05–6.32) and for point-of-care testing of 5.93 (95% CI: 5.28–6.67).ConclusionsBarcoding is effective for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based “best practice.” The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size rating is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.DisclaimerThe findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR).

► First systematic review of barcoding effectiveness at reducing specimen ID errors. ► Barcoding is highly effective at reducing patient specimen and lab test ID errors. ► Barcoding specimens and POC tests are recommended evidence-based “best practices.” ► Unpublished studies made an important contribution to the barcoding evidence.