ReviewClinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry2014
Establishing benchmarks and metrics for disruptive technologies, inappropriate and obsolete tests in the clinical laboratory.
Review in Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Recommendation System for Clinical Laboratory Tests: Retrospective Analysis of the National Health Insurance Database.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- A review on laboratory tests' utilization: A trigger for cutting costs and quality improvement in health care settings.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2016Article
- Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review.BMC medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Benchmarks and metrics related to laboratory test utilization are based on evidence-based medical literature that may suffer from a positive publication bias. Guidelines are only as good as the data reviewed to create them. Disruptive technologies require time for appropriate use to be established before utilization review will be meaningful. Metrics include monitoring the use of obsolete tests and the inappropriate use of lab tests. Test utilization by clients in a hospital outreach program can be used to monitor the impact of new clients on lab workload. A multi-disciplinary laboratory utilization committee is the most effective tool for modifying bad habits, and reviewing and approving new tests for the lab formulary or by sending them out to a reference lab.
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.