ArticleBiochemia medica2019
Effectiveness of minimum retesting intervals in managing repetitive laboratory testing: experience from a Croatian university hospital.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to reduce repetitive ordering of low-value inpatient laboratory tests: a systematic review.BMJ open quality · 2023Pooled it
- Laboratory Test Overuse and Compliance With Minimum Retesting Intervals in a Portuguese Healthcare Network.Cureus · 2026Article
- Utility of procalcitonin in a medical intensive care unit in Croatia.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2021Article
- Laboratory Demand Management Strategies-An Overview.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
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
introductionInappropriate laboratory retesting can be addressed by implementing minimum retesting intervals (MRI). The aim of our study was to assess the effectiveness of the implemented MRI protocol for inpatients. MATERIALS AND
methodsMinimum retesting intervals were applied for 53 laboratory tests. The overall reduction of test requests, reduction in charges and reagent cost savings, frequency of MRI alert appearance as well as the rate of MRI acceptance and ignorance were calculated for a one-year period. Reasons for violating the MRI rule, hospital departments that contributed mostly to MRI rule violation, and the frequency of MRI violations between routine and emergency laboratory were evaluated.
resultsDuring the one-year period, 106,780 requests violated the MRI rule, which corresponds to 14.8% of all requests received. 13,843 requests were cancelled, yielding a 1.9% reduction of requested tests. High-volume tests, namely complete blood count, C-reactive protein, alanine aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyltransferase and total bilirubin, accounted for 65% of all generated alerts and had the highest alert ignorance (>85%). The highest cancellation rate was observed for tumor markers and autoimmunity tests, for most being at least 50%. Annual charge reduction was 62,641 EUR while reagent cost savings were 11,408 EUR. Tests performed in the emergency laboratory had a higher alert appearance than the same routine tests. The most common reason for MRI violation was clinical justification based on the patient's condition. Most frequently ignored MRI alerts were in the intensive care unit.
conclusionMRI implementation showed limited effectiveness in reducing testing repetition and achieving financial savings, yet provided the basis for future improvements.
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.