Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29471324›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of clinical pathology2018

Effectiveness of Practices to Support Appropriate Laboratory Test Utilization: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Matthew Rubinstein, Robert Hirsch, Kakali Bandyopadhyay, Bereneice Madison, Thomas Taylor, Anne Ranne, Millie Linville, Keri Donaldson, Felicitas Lacbawan, Nancy Cornish

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of clinical pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Targeting low-value laboratory care.Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Matthew RubinsteinCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Robert HirschCarter Consulting, Atlanta, GA.
Kakali BandyopadhyayDeloitte Consulting, Atlanta, GA.
Bereneice MadisonCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Thomas TaylorCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Anne RanneCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Millie LinvilleDeloitte Consulting, Atlanta, GA.
Keri DonaldsonPennsylvania State University, State College.
Felicitas LacbawanQuest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, San Juan Capistrano, CA.
Nancy CornishCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of practices used to support appropriate clinical laboratory test utilization.

methodsThis review followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Laboratory Medicine Best Practices A6 cycle method. Eligible studies assessed one of the following practices for effect on outcomes relating to over- or underutilization: computerized provider order entry (CPOE), clinical decision support systems/tools (CDSS/CDST), education, feedback, test review, reflex testing, laboratory test utilization (LTU) teams, and any combination of these practices. Eligible outcomes included intermediate, systems outcomes (eg, number of tests ordered/performed and cost of tests), as well as patient-related outcomes (eg, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, morbidity, and mortality).

resultsEighty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Fifty-one of these studies could be meta-analyzed. Strength of evidence ratings for each practice ranged from high to insufficient.

conclusionPractice recommendations are made for CPOE (specifically, modifications to existing CPOE), reflex testing, and combined practices. No recommendation for or against could be made for CDSS/CDST, education, feedback, test review, and LTU. Findings from this review serve to inform guidance for future studies.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansMedical Order Entry SystemsPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID29471324
PMCPMC6016712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.