Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30429148›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Compliance with pathology testing guidelines in Australian general practice: protocol for a secondary analysis of electronic health record data.

Gorkem Sezgin, Andrew Georgiou, Rae-Anne Hardie, Ling Li, Lisa G Pont, Tony Badrick, Guilherme S Franco, Johanna I Westbrook, Natalie Rinehart, Adam McLeod and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Responding to COVID-19 with real-time general practice data in Australia.International journal of medical informatics · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Coding and classifying GP data: the POLAR project.BMJ health & care informatics · 2019
    Article
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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gorkem SezginCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew GeorgiouCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rae-Anne HardieCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ling LiCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lisa G PontCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Tony BadrickThe Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Guilherme S FrancoCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Johanna I WestbrookCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Natalie RinehartOutcome Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Adam McLeodOutcome Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Christopher PearceOutcome Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Marianne ShearerGippsland Primary Health Network, Moe, Victoria, Australia.
Robin WhyteEastern Melbourne Primary Health Network, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Elizabeth DevenySouth Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network, Heatherton, Victoria, Australia.
Macquarie University · AUEastern Health · AURoyal College of Pathologists of Australasia · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn Australia, general practitioners usually are the first point of contact for patients with non-urgent medical conditions. Appropriate and efficient utilisation of pathology tests by general practitioners forms a key part of diagnosis and monitoring. However overutilisationand underutilisation of pathology tests have been reported across several tests and conditions, despite evidence-based guidelines outlining best practice in pathology testing. There are a limited number of studies evaluating the impact of these guidelines on pathology testing in general practice. The aim of our quantitative observational study is to define how pathology tests are used in general practice and investigate how test ordering practices align with evidence-based pathology guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Access to non-identifiable patient data will be obtained through electronic health records from general practices across three primary health networks in Victoria, Australia. Numbers and characteristics of patients, general practices, encounters, pathology tests and problems managed over time will be described. Overall rates of encounters and tests, alongside more detailed investigation between subcategories (encounter year, patient's age, gender, and location and general practice size), will also be undertaken. To evaluate how general practitioner test ordering coincides with evidence-based guidelines, five key candidate indicators will be investigated: full blood counts for patients on clozapine medication; international normalised ratio measurements for patients on warfarin medication; glycated haemoglobin testing for monitoring patients with diabetes; vitamin D testing; and thyroid function testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics clearance to collect data from general practice facilities has been obtained by the data provider from the RACGP National Research and Evaluation Ethics Committee (NREEC 17-008). Approval for the research group to use these data has been obtained from Macquarie University (5201700872). This study is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health Quality Use of Pathology Program (Agreement ID: 4-2QFVW4M). Findings will be reported to the Department of Health and disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals and presentations (national and international conferences, industry forums).

Indexed as

AdultBlood Chemical AnalysisClozapineDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Electronic Health RecordsEvaluation Studies as TopicGeneral PracticeGlycated HemoglobinGuideline AdherenceHealth Services MisuseHumansInternational Normalized RatioPathology, ClinicalThyroid Function TestsUtilization ReviewVictoriaClozapineGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanVitamin DWarfarinaustraliahealth informaticspathologyprimary carequality in health care

Identifiers

PMID30429148
PMCPMC6252775
OpenAlexW2900702746

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.