ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2010
Reasons for ordering laboratory tests and relationship with frequency of abnormal results.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining Test Order Appropriateness Using Mean Abnormal Result Rate in Inpatient and Outpatient Care: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Re-Purposing the Ordering of Routine Laboratory Tests in Hospitalized Medical Patients (RePORT): protocol for a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial to evaluate the impact of a multicomponent intervention bundle to reduce laboratory test over-utilization.Implementation science : IS · 2024Article
- Targeting repetitive laboratory testing with electronic health records-embedded predictive decision support: A pre-implementation study.Clinical biochemistry · 2023Article
- Why Test study protocol: a UK-wide audit using the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) to explore the reasons for primary care testing.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Screening, Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current State and Future Prospects.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- The complementary nature of query-based and directed health information exchange in primary care practice.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- A multi-level strategy for a long lasting reduction in unnecessary laboratory testing: A multicenter before and after study in a teaching hospital network.International journal of clinical practice · 2018Article
- 'I'm fishing really'--inflammatory marker testing in primary care: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
- Long-term follow-up of patients with elevated serum calcium concentrations in Swedish primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2013Article
- Quality assurance of laboratory work and clinical use of laboratory tests in general practice in norway: a survey.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2011Article
- Learning from Each Other: A Multisite Collaborative to Reduce Electrolyte Testing.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLaboratory tests are ordered on a daily basis, even though disease probability is often very low. Abnormal results, especially mildly abnormal results, can be difficult to interpret in these circumstances. Further insights into the occurrence of abnormalities can help improve rational test ordering and test interpretation. The objective was therefore to examine the frequency of mildly and markedly abnormal results and their relationship with physicians' reasons for ordering tests.
designProspective study. Participants. A total of 87 primary care physicians in the Netherlands collected data on 1775 patients.
main outcome measuresThe physicians recorded the reason for ordering the tests, the most probable diagnosis and the pretest probability. The laboratories' reference values and specified "action limits" were used to assess the number of abnormal results and markedly abnormal results, respectively.
resultsLaboratory results were received for 1621 patients and 15,603 tests were reported (mean 9.6). The proportion of abnormal test results increased with increasing pretest probability (from 13.9% to 34.7%) and was 13.4% for tests ordered to reassure the patient and 13.3% for psychosocial diagnoses. The proportion of patients with at least one abnormal test result was high: 53.1% for tests ordered to reassure and 57.7% in patients with low pretest probability. Corresponding values for a marked abnormality were 11.1% and 12.4%, respectively.
conclusionAbnormal laboratory test results were frequent, even when pretest probability was low. Physicians should therefore carefully consider when tests are necessary. Future research could explore physicians' interpretation of test results and its impact on diagnosis and management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.