SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2019
Measures Used to Assess the Impact of Interventions to Reduce Low-Value Care: a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Pooled it
- Using United States medicare program claims to identify reliable measures of low value services influenced by primary care physician decisions.BMC health services research · 2026Observational
- Physician-suggested strategies for deimplementing low-value care in Swedish primary care: a qualitative analysis across system levels.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- PERSPECTIVE: A Path to Value-Based Insurance Design for Mental Health Services.The journal of mental health policy and economics · 2024Article
- Impacts of COVID-19 on Appropriate Use of Screening Colonoscopy in a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Development of the SPREAD framework to support the scaling of de-implementation strategies: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2022Review
- A call to integrate health equity into learning health system research training.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Updating a Claims-Based Measure of Low-Value Services Applicable to Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Prevalence and changes of low-value care at acute care hospitals: a multicentre observational study in Japan.BMJ open · 2022Observational
- Dealing With Immunoglobulin Shortages: A Rationalization Plan From Evidence-Based and Data Collection.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- De-implementing low-value care in endocrinology.Endocrine · 2021Review
- Trends in Low-Value Carotid Imaging in the Veterans Health Administration From 2007 to 2016.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- The Future of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Early Feedback for the Development of a Novel Brief Colon Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Adults ≥75 years at Risk for Limited Health Literacy: A Pilot Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceStudies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured.
objectiveTo characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences.
findingsA total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N = 101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N = 16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care.
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.