Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 51: 1116-1122, 2005. First published April 28, 2005; 10.1373/clinchem.2004.047423
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplement
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2004.047423v1
51/7/1116    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krafft, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Lichy, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krafft, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Lichy, J. H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Molecular Diagnostics and Genetics
(Clinical Chemistry. 2005;51:1116-1122.)
© 2005 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Molecular Diagnostics and Genetics

Time-Motion Analysis of 6 Cystic Fibrosis Mutation Detection Systems

Amy E. Kraffta and Jack H. Lichy

Department of Molecular Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rockville, MD.

aAddress correspondence to this author at: 1413 Research Blvd., AFIP Annex, Department of Molecular Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rockville, MD 20850. Fax 301-295-9507; e-mail Amy.Krafft{at}afip.osd.mil.

Background: A dramatic increase in requests for routine cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier screening prompted us to conduct a time-motion analysis comparing commercially available CF testing platforms. Questions addressed in the study included: (a) How much time is required to perform each step involved in carrying out the assay procedure? (b) Which system requires the minimum number of manual manipulations to complete a typical run? (c) What workflow benefits can be achieved by automation?

Methods: We used a 96-sample run for comparisons and analyzed each of the 6 methods to determine the number of pipetting steps and manual manipulations, the labor and instrument time, and the total time required to perform the assay. The survey participants included a staff of 4 technologists who perform complex molecular assays regularly. Time required for each procedure was determined by direct observation and from work logs completed by the technologists.

Results: The total number of pipetting motions varied from 78 to 344. Labor time ranged from 2.6 to 8.4 h, and total assay time from 7.6 to 13.7 h.

Conclusion: Time-motion analysis allowed identification of a method that minimized pipetting motions and thus reduced the risk of repetitive stress injury.




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 J. Mol. Diagn.Home page
M. A. Johnson, M. J. Yoshitomi, and C. S. Richards
A Comparative Study of Five Technologically Diverse CFTR Testing Platforms
J. Mol. Diagn., July 1, 2007; 9(3): 401 - 407.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Mol. Diagn.Home page
F. M. Hantash, S. C. Olson, B. Anderson, A. Buller, R. Chen, B. Crossly, W. Sun, and C. M. Strom
Rapid One-Step Carrier Detection Assay of Mucolipidosis IV Mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish Population
J. Mol. Diagn., May 1, 2006; 8(2): 282 - 287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.