ArticlePloS one2016
The Value of In Vitro Diagnostic Testing in Medical Practice: A Status Report.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 228 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Practices to Support Appropriate Laboratory Test Utilization: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.American journal of clinical pathology · 2018Pooled it
- Assessments of the in vitro diagnostic kits landscape and availability from selected hospitals and health-related facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Urgent samples in clinical laboratories: stochastic batching to minimize patient turnaround time.Health care management science · 2026Article
- Companion Diagnostics in Clinical Therapy: Current Applications and Future Directions.MedComm · 2026Review
- Impact ofFrontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in experimental and clinical in vitro analysis: applications, limitations, and future directions.Biotechnology notes (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Beyond diagnostic test performance: two content-validated questionnaires assessing patient and clinician satisfaction with diagnostic tests.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Navigating and Advancing Market Access for In Vitro Diagnostics: Understanding the Roles of Key Stakeholders and Policy.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Analysis of anatomic pathology and laboratory medicine diagnostic services and infrastructure available at a sample of institutions in Kenya.American journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- Roadblocks of Urinary EV Biomarkers: Moving Toward the Clinic.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2025Review
- An Automated Clinical Laboratory Decision Support System for Test Utilization, Medical Necessity Verification, and Payment Processing.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
- A Novel High-Throughput and Sensitive Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay System.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Laboratory reference intervals influence referral patterns for hemoglobin abnormalities in the Ontario virtual care system.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Review
- Analyzing laboratory test utilization trends in belgian primary care: a decade of insights with international perspectives.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Immunoassay System Based on the Technology of Time-Resolved Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Ov-RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a assay for the detection of Opisthorchis viverrini infection in field-collected human feces.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Electrochemical Immunosensor for the Quantification of Galectin-3 in Saliva.Sensors and actuators. B, Chemical · 2024Article
- Smart medical report: efficient detection of common and rare diseases on common blood tests.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- A multiple criteria decision analysis to establish the use cases and candidate point of care tests to enter into a platform trial of multipleNIHR open research · 2024Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn vitro diagnostic (IVD) investigations are indispensable for routine patient management. Appropriate testing allows early-stage interventions, reducing late-stage healthcare expenditure (HCE).
aimTo investigate HCE on IVDs in two developed markets and to assess the perceived value of IVDs on clinical decision-making. Physician-perceived HCE on IVD was evaluated, as well as desired features of new diagnostic markers.
methodsPast and current HCE on IVD was calculated for the US and Germany. A total of 79 US/German oncologists and cardiologists were interviewed to assess the number of cases where: physicians ask for IVDs; IVDs are used for initial diagnosis, treatment monitoring, or post-treatment; and decision-making is based on an IVD test result. A sample of 201 US and German oncologists and cardiologists was questioned regarding the proportion of HCE they believed to be attributable to IVD testing. After disclosing the actual IVD HCE, the physician's perception of the appropriateness of the amount was captured. Finally, the association between physician-rated impact of IVD on decision-making and perceived contribution of IVD expenditure on overall HCE was assessed.
resultsIVD costs account for 2.3% and 1.4% of total HCE in the US and Germany. Most physicians (81%) believed that the actual HCE on IVDs was >5%; 19% rated the spending correctly (0-4%, p<0.001). When informed of the actual amount, 64% of physicians rated this as appropriate (p<0.0001); 66% of decision-making was based on IVD. Significantly, more physicians asked for either additional clinical or combined clinical/health economic data than for the product (test/platform) alone (p<0.0001).
conclusionsOur results indicate a poor awareness of actual HCE on IVD, but a high attributable value of diagnostic procedures for patient management. New markers should deliver actionable and medically relevant information, to guide decision-making and foster improved patient outcomes.
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.