Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31703686›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Self-reported test ordering practices among Canadian internal medicine physicians and trainees: a multicenter cross-sectional survey.

Thomas Bodley, Janice L Kwan, John Matelski, Patrick J Darragh, Peter Cram

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review of evidence-based practices for clinical education and health care delivery in the clinical teaching unit.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas BodleyDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. thomas.bodley@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1559-6308
Janice L KwanDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
John MatelskiDivision of General Internal Medicine, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Patrick J DarraghDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Peter CramDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Building Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research at the University of IowaK24AR062133 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI CRAM, PETER M · 2012 to 2016
$594k
NIAMS NIH HHS K24 AR062133NIH HHS NIAMS (AR062133)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver-testing is a recognized problem, but clinicians usually lack information about their personal test ordering volumes. In the absence of data, clinicians rely on self-perception to inform their test ordering practices. In this study we explore clinician self-perception of diagnostic test ordering intensity.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of inpatient General Internal Medicine (GIM) attending physicians and trainees at three Canadian teaching hospitals. We collected information about: self-reported test ordering intensity, perception of colleagues test ordering intensity, and importance of clinical utility, patient comfort, and cost when ordering tests. We compared responses of clinicians who self-identified as high vs low utilizers of diagnostic tests, and attending physicians vs trainees.

resultsOnly 15% of inpatient GIM clinicians self-identified as high utilizers of diagnostic tests, while 73% felt that GIM clinicians in aggregate ("others") order too many tests. Survey respondents identified clinical utility as important when choosing to order tests (selected by 94%), followed by patient comfort (48%) and cost (23%). Self-identified low/average utilizers of diagnostic tests were more likely to report considering cost compared to high utilizers (27% vs 5%, P = 0.04). Attending physicians were more likely to consider patient comfort (70% vs 41%, p = 0.01) and cost (42% vs 17%, p = 0.003) than trainees.

conclusionsIn the absence of data, providers seem to recognize that over investigation is a problem, but few self-identify as being high test utilizers. Moreover, a significant percentage of respondents did not consider cost or patient discomfort when ordering tests. Our findings highlight challenges in reducing over-testing in the current era.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleGeneral PractitionersHospitals, TeachingHumansInternal MedicineMaleMedical Staff, HospitalPatient ComfortPractice Patterns, Physicians'Self ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesBehavioural scienceDiagnostic investigationHospital medicineQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31703686
PMCPMC6842191
OpenAlexW2984226417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.