Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32158058›Full record

ReviewThe Clinical biochemist. Reviews2020

The Pursuit of Value in Laboratory Medicine - Progress and Challenges.

Andrew St John

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2020. 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Andrew St JohnDrajon Management, Perth WA 6050, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pressure on healthcare budgets including laboratory medicine is relentless and the focus on activities and costs remains the dominant funding model of laboratory medicine everywhere. The limitations of this model are well documented and for a decade or more laboratory professions worldwide have started looking at alternative models where the value of laboratory medicine and its impact on patient outcomes are the predominant driving force. There are multiple ways to determine the value of a medical test, particularly if one takes into consideration its impact upon the complete clinical pathway. Thus various approaches to value determination are being explored by a number of international organisations. These organisations will be reviewed below, including one which uses the concept of a value proposition that describes in detail how a test should be implemented by measuring its clinical, operational and economic impact. All approaches for determination of value require professional leadership. There is a need for research of varying types including that related to translating global evidence into local practice, a key challenge facing laboratory medicine and healthcare generally. Another challenge is to think and act beyond the silo of the laboratory to achieve greater collaboration with those colleagues more directly involved in patient care.

Identifiers

PMID32158058
PMCPMC7043402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.