ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2017
Inappropriateness in laboratory medicine: an elephant in the room?
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Advances in the understanding and management of hospital-acquired anemia.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
- Perspectives on emerging challenges and training needs for the Laboratory Medicine specialist of the future.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in the pre-analytical phase: State-of-the art and future perspectives.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2024Article
- Interventions to improve appropriateness of laboratory testing in the intensive care unit: a narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
- Article
- Drug interference with biochemical laboratory tests.Biochemia medica · 2023Review
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Classification of Thyroid Nodules: An Update.Cancers · 2023Review
- Deep into Laboratory: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Recommend Laboratory Tests.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Identification of Predictors of Abnormal Calcium, Magnesium and Phosphorus Blood Levels in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2021Article
- Doc, can you test me for "toxic metals"? Challenges of testing for toxicants in patients with environmental concerns.Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care · 2020Article
- Microalbuminuria and Traditional Serum Biomarkers of Nephropathy among Diabetic Patients at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in South Western Uganda.Journal of diabetes research · 2019Article
- Variation in Diagnostic Test Use and Associated Outcomes in Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome at Children's Hospitals.Hospital pediatrics · 2018Article
- Appropriateness of tumor marker request: a case of study.Annals of translational medicine · 2017Article
- Article
- Cancer diagnostics: current concepts and future perspectives.Annals of translational medicine · 2017Article
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
Appropriateness of diagnostic testing can be conventionally described as prescription of the right test, using the right method, at the right time, to the right patient, with the right costs and for producing the right outcome. There is ongoing debate about the real burden of inappropriateness in laboratory diagnostics. The media coverage of this issue has also recently led to either over- or under-emphasizing the clinical, organizational and economic consequences. This is quite problematic, inasmuch as some reliable data are available in the current scientific literature, showing that inappropriateness of laboratory testing can be as high as 70%. This is especially evident for, though not limited to, cancer biomarkers testing, in which the practice of avoidable tests ordering is dramatically magnified. The reasons beyond inappropriateness are many and multifaceted, entailing wrong habits, resistance to changes, poor culture, insufficient education and healthcare inefficiencies. There are many unfavorable consequences attributable to avoidable testing, including unjustified incremental costs, derangement of laboratory efficiency and potential patient safety issues. The tentative solutions to this important problem necessitate that policymakers, local hospital administrators, laboratory professionals, clinicians, patients' associations and diagnostic companies join the efforts and embark in the same landmark effort for disseminating a better culture of appropriateness.
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.