Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24969916›Full record

ReviewBiochemia medica2014

The laboratory test utilization management toolbox.

Geoffrey Baird

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biochemia medica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Enhancing the Clinical Value of Medical Laboratory Testing.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2017
    Review
  17. Optimizing laboratory test utilization in long-term acute care hospitals.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

1 author.

Geoffrey BairdDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficiently managing laboratory test utilization requires both ensuring adequate utilization of needed tests in some patients and discouraging superfluous tests in other patients. After the difficult clinical decision is made to define the patients that do and do not need a test, a wealth of interventions are available to the clinician and laboratorian to help guide appropriate utilization. These interventions are collectively referred to here as the utilization management toolbox. Experience has shown that some tools in the toolbox are weak and other are strong, and that tools are most effective when many are used simultaneously. While the outcomes of utilization management studies are not always as concrete as may be desired, what data is available in the literature indicate that strong utilization management interventions are safe and effective measures to improve patient health and reduce waste in an era of increasing financial pressure.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremClinical Chemistry TestsClinical Laboratory TechniquesHumans

Identifiers

PMID24969916
PMCPMC4083574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.