Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15576543›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine

Improving test ordering in primary care: the added value of a small-group quality improvement strategy compared with classic feedback only.

Wim H J M Verstappen, Trudy van der Weijden, Willy I Dubois, Ivo Smeele, Jan Hermsen, Frans E S Tan, Richard P T M Grol

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Strategies to reduce the use of low-value medical tests in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Canadian Quality Circle pilot project in osteoporosis: rationale, methods, and feasibility.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2007
    Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Temporal growth and geographic variation in the use of laboratory tests by NHS general practices: using routine data to identify research priorities.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Wim H J M VerstappenCentre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), and Department of Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. wim.verstappen@hag.unimaas.nl
Trudy van der Weijden
Willy I Dubois
Ivo Smeele
Jan Hermsen
Frans E S Tan
Richard P T M Grol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe wanted to evaluate the added value of small peer-group quality improvement meetings compared with simple feedback as a strategy to improve test-ordering behavior. Numbers of tests ordered by primary care physicians are increasing, and many of these tests seem to be unnecessary according to established, evidence-based guidelines.

methodsWe enrolled 194 primary care physicians from 27 local primary care practice groups in 5 health care regions (5 diagnostic centers). The study was a cluster randomized trial with randomization at the local physician group level. We evaluated an innovative, multifaceted strategy, combining written comparative feedback, group education on national guidelines, and social influence by peers in quality improvement sessions in small groups. The strategy was aimed at 3 specific clinical topics: cardiovascular issues, upper abdominal complaints, and lower abdominal complaints. The mean number of tests per physician per 6 months at baseline and the physicians' region were used as independent variables, and the mean number of tests per physician per 6 months was the dependent variable.

resultsThe new strategy was executed in 13 primary care groups, whereas 14 groups received feedback only. For all 3 clinical topics, the decrease in mean total number of tests ordered by physicians in the intervention arm was far more substantial (on average 51 fewer tests per physician per half-year) than the decrease in mean number of tests ordered by physicians in the feedback arm (P = .005). Five tests considered to be inappropriate for the clinical problem of upper abdominal complaints decreased in the intervention arm, with physicians in the feedback arm ordering 13 more tests per 6 months (P = .002). Interdoctor variation in test ordering decreased more in the intervention arm.

conclusionCompared with only disseminating comparative feedback reports to primary care physicians, the new strategy of involving peer interaction and social influence improved the physicians' test-ordering behavior. To be effective, feedback needs to be integrated in an interactive, educational environment.

Indexed as

Abdominal PainAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesDelivery of Health CareEducation, MedicalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPhysiciansPrimary Health CareQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID15576543
PMCPMC1466745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.