ArticleEJIFCC2015
Are Guidelines Guiding us on How to Utilize Laboratory Tests?
Article in EJIFCC, 2015. 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.
- TSH Receptor Antibody Test Utilization Patterns From a National Reference Laboratory: TRAb, TSI, or Both?The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Recommendations for the use of biomarkers for the management of adults with sepsis: a scoping review and critical appraisal.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Antibiotic susceptibility testing using minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing patient risks and costs associated with the delivery of health care services have been related to inappropriate and uncontrolled use of biomarkers which make evidence-based guideline recommendations for best practice increasingly important. The translation of basic scientific discoveries into clinically meaningful studies and then to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or health policy is, however, not straightforward. CPGs are potentially the most influential publications as they aim to guide clinical decisions and impact patient outcomes; hence, current approaches to their development often fail scientific publication standards. Critical appraisal of CPGs has revealed that many do not involve laboratory professionals in formulating recommendations on the use of tests; the composition of the panel could influence the scope of guidelines and over-represent certain stakeholders' views; numerous CPGs do not have rigorous evidence-based methodology and miss essential information important for the correct interpretation and application of laboratory results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27683490PMC4975299What 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.