Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19341544›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2009

Ordering blood tests for patients with unexplained fatigue in general practice: what does it yield? Results of the VAMPIRE trial.

Hèlen Koch, Marloes A van Bokhoven, Gerben ter Riet, Jm Tineke van Alphen-Jager, Trudy van der Weijden, Geert-Jan Dinant, Patrick J E Bindels

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Functional Somatic Symptoms.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. GPs' perspectives on diagnostic testing in children with persistent non-specific symptoms: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Underlying disease risk among patients with fatigue: a population-based cohort study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Approach to fatigue in primary care.Singapore medical journal · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Artificial intelligence and diagnosis in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Tired all the time: can new research on fatigue help clinicians?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hèlen KochAcademic Medical Center-University of Amsterdam, Division of Clinical Methods and Public Health, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. h.koch@amc.uva.nl
Marloes A van Bokhoven
Gerben ter Riet
Jm Tineke van Alphen-Jager
Trudy van der Weijden
Geert-Jan Dinant
Patrick J E Bindels
Academic Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnexplained fatigue is frequently encountered in general practice. Because of the low prior probability of underlying somatic pathology, the positive predictive value of abnormal (blood) test results is limited in such patients.

aimThe study objectives were to investigate the relationship between established diagnoses and the occurrence of abnormal blood test results among patients with unexplained fatigue; to survey the effects of the postponement of test ordering on this relationship; and to explore consultation-related determinants of abnormal test results. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cluster randomised trial.

settingGeneral practices of 91 GPs in the Netherlands.

methodGPs were randomised to immediate or postponed blood-test ordering. Patients with new unexplained fatigue were included. Limited and expanded sets of blood tests were ordered either immediately or after 4 weeks. Diagnoses during the 1-year follow-up period were extracted from medical records. Two-by-two tables were generated. To establish independent determinants of abnormal test results, a multivariate logistic regression model was used.

resultsData of 325 patients were analysed (71% women; mean age 41 years). Eight per cent of patients had a somatic illness that was detectable by blood-test ordering. The number of false-positive test results increased in particular in the expanded test set. Patients rarely re-consulted after 4 weeks. Test postponement did not affect the distribution of patients over the two-by-two tables. No independent consultation-related determinants of abnormal test results were found.

conclusionResults support restricting the number of tests ordered because of the increased risk of false-positive test results from expanded test sets. Although the number of re-consulting patients was small, the data do not refute the advice to postpone blood-test ordering for medical reasons in patients with unexplained fatigue in general practice.

Indexed as

AdultCluster AnalysisFalse Negative ReactionsFamily PracticeFatigueFemaleHematologic TestsHumansMaleNetherlandsPredictive Value of TestsProfessional PracticeSensitivity and SpecificityUnnecessary Procedures

Identifiers

PMID19341544
PMCPMC2662125
OpenAlexW2151836303

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.