ArticleBiochemia medica2017
Utility of routine laboratory preoperative tests based on previous results: Time to give up.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2017. 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.
- Choosing which in-hospital laboratory tests to target for intervention: a scoping review.Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Hypoalbuminemia and Elevated CRP are Risk Factors for Deep Infections and Urinary Tract Infections After Lumbar Spine Surgery in a Large Retrospective Patient Population.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Information technology-based joint preoperative assessment, risk stratification and its impact on patient management, perioperative outcome, and cost.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Article
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
introductionThe usefulness and cost-effectiveness of routine laboratory preoperative tests (POTs) have been challenged recently. In fact, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Task Force has stated that test results obtained from the medical record within 6 months of surgery generally are mostly acceptable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the degree of utility of POTs and their clinical benefit based on this recommendation. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe studied retrospectively every routine POT request from 8 randomly selected weeks in 2016. Every POT contained glucose, creatinine, haemoglobin and coagulation tests (PT-INR). Each pathological result for these tests was registered and classified as "expected" (if previous pathological result within 6 months existed for that test) or "unexpected" (if previous pathological result within 6 months did not exist for that test). Results of ASA physical status classification (a system for assessing the fitness of patients before surgery) and changes in patient management after POTs were retrieved from medical history as well.
resultsA total of 4516 tests (from 1129 patients) were analysed and 498 results were found pathological (11%). Of these, 403 were expected (8.9%) and 95 unexpected (2.1%). There was not any change in anaesthetic management for any patient due to these findings.
conclusionsRoutine POTs are an inefficient and low-value service. POTs have to be always ordered selectively after a previous consideration of specific information obtained from several sources (medical records, interviews, examinations, type of surgery) and only if the information obtained will result in changes in the management of the patient.
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.