SynthesisImplementation science : IS2015
The effectiveness of interventions to improve laboratory requesting patterns among primary care physicians: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strategies to reduce the use of low-value medical tests in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Pooled it
- Audit and feedback to improve laboratory test and transfusion ordering in critical care: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Addressing overuse of health services in health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis.Health research policy and systems · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Clinical decision support improves the appropriateness of laboratory test ordering in primary care without increasing diagnostic error: the ELMO cluster randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2020Trial
- Electronic Laboratory Medicine ordering with evidence-based Order sets in primary care (ELMO study): protocol for a cluster randomised trial.Implementation science : IS · 2017Trial
- Novel approach to the codesign of a tailored intervention bundle: applying theory with pragmatism.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Article
- Interventions to improve appropriateness of laboratory testing in the intensive care unit: a narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
- Enhancing Insights into Australia's Gonococcal Surveillance Programme through Stochastic Modelling.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Developing a Questionnaire Evaluating Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors on Audit & Feedback among General Practitioners: A Mixed Methods Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Choosing which in-hospital laboratory tests to target for intervention: a scoping review.Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Does admission order form design really matter? A reduction in urea blood test ordering.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Efficiency over thoroughness in laboratory testing decision making in primary care: findings from a realist review.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Article
- Preventing overuse of laboratory diagnostics: a case study into diagnosing anaemia in Dutch general practice.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Educational intervention to optimise serum immunoglobulin test use in Irish primary care: an interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- Article
- Optimising laboratory monitoring of chronic conditions in primary care: a quality improvement framework.BMJ open quality · 2019Article
- Explaining variations in test ordering in primary care: protocol for a realist review.BMJ open · 2018Article
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
backgroundLaboratory testing is an integral part of day-to-day primary care practice, with approximately 30 % of patient encounters resulting in a request. However, research suggests that a large proportion of requests does not benefit patient care and is avoidable. The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively search the literature for studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve primary care physician use of laboratory tests.
methodsA search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus (from inception to 09/02/14) was conducted. The following study designs were considered: systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analysis (ITSs). Studies were quality appraised using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) checklist. The population of interest was primary care physicians. Interventions were considered if they aimed to improve laboratory testing in primary care. The outcome of interest was a volume of laboratory tests.
resultsIn total, 6,166 titles and abstracts were reviewed, followed by 87 full texts. Of these, 11 papers were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. This included four RCTs, six CBAs and one ITS study. The types of interventions examined included education, feedback, guidelines, education with feedback, feedback with guidelines and changing order forms. The quality of included studies varied with seven studies deemed to have a low risk of bias, three with unclear risk of bias and one with high risk of bias. All but one study found significant reductions in the volume of tests following the intervention, with effect sizes ranging from 1.2 to 60 %. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not performed.
conclusionsInterventions such as educational strategies, feedback and changing test order forms may improve the efficient use of laboratory tests in primary care; however, the level of evidence is quite low and the quality is poor. The reproducibility of findings from different laboratories is also difficult to ascertain from the literature. Some standardisation of both interventions and outcome measures is required to enable formal meta-analysis.
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.