ArticleCMAJ open
Frequency of repeat antinuclear antibody testing in Ontario: a population-based descriptive study.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepeat antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing may be unnecessary, potentially harmful and costly. Our aim was to assess the frequency and correlates of repeat ANA testing in Ontario.
methodsWe performed a retrospective descriptive study identifying ANA tests performed over 2008-2015 among adults within the Ontario Laboratories Information System. Our primary outcome was any ANA test performed within 1 year of a previous ANA test. Our secondary outcome was any repeat test after a previous positive result. Repeat testing overall (regardless of who performed the previous test) and repeat testing by the same provider who performed the previous test were determined separately. We assessed correlates of repeat testing (e.g., patient and physician characteristics) and of repeat testing after a positive result using separate logistic regression models by means of generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of repeat testing within patients and within physician practices.
resultsIn total, 587 357 ANA tests were performed in 437 966 patients over the study period, of which 126 322 (21.5%) gave a positive result and 164 913 (28.1%) were repeat tests. Family physicians ordered 358 422 tests (61.0%), and rheumatologists ordered 65 071 tests (11.1%). Of the repeat tests, 82 332 (49.9%) were ordered within 12 months of the previous test. Among the 73 961 repeat tests ordered by the same practitioner within 12 months, the previous test result was positive for 22 657 (30.6%). A higher proportion of rheumatologists than other physicians ordered repeat tests within 12 months (36.1% v. 11.3%). The most significant correlate of potentially redundant testing was testing among patients with suspected or confirmed connective tissue disease.
interpretationOver a quarter of ANA tests in Ontario were repeat tests; rheumatologists were most likely to order repeat testing. Our findings may be useful to inform quality-improvement initiatives related to the appropriateness of ANA testing.
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.