ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2011
Quality assurance of laboratory work and clinical use of laboratory tests in general practice in norway: a survey.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of computer reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in general practice--a randomized controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2013Trial
- Long-term follow-up of patients with elevated serum calcium concentrations in Swedish primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVirtually all the general practices in Norway participate in the Norwegian Quality Improvement of Laboratory Services in Primary Care, NOKLUS. In order to assess and develop NOKLUS's services, it was decided to carry out an investigation in the largest participating group, general practices.
designIn autumn 2008 a questionnaire was sent to all Norwegian general practices asking for feedback on different aspects of NOKLUS's main services: contact with medical laboratory technologists, sending of control materials, use and maintenance of practice-specific laboratory binders, courses, and testing of laboratory equipment. In addition, attitudes were elicited towards possible new services directed at assessing other technical equipment and clinical use of tests.
resultsResponses were received from 1290 of 1552 practices (83%). The great majority thought that the frequency of sending out control material should continue as at present, and they were pleased with the feedback reports and follow-up by the laboratory technologists in the counties. Even after many years of practical experience, there is still a need to update laboratory knowledge through visits to practices, courses, and written information. Practices also wanted quality assurance of blood pressure meters and spirometers, and many doctors wanted feedback on their use of laboratory tests.
conclusionServices regarding quality assurance of point-of-care tests, guidance, and courses should be continued. Quality assurance of other technical equipment and of the doctor's clinical use of laboratory tests should be established as part of comprehensive quality assurance.
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.