SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2020
Strategies to reduce the use of low-value medical tests in primary care: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and proof-of-concept of a complex intervention to support appropriate imaging for musculoskeletal pain: the Betti programme.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Using general practice data for chronic disease prevalence: the impact of record linkage on estimation accuracy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- The impact of Choosing WiselyBMC health services research · 2025Article
- Relative importance and interactions of factors influencing low-value care provision: a factorial survey experiment among Swedish primary care physicians.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- GPs' perspectives on diagnostic testing in children with persistent non-specific symptoms: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Five-year sustainability of a de-implementation strategy to reduce inappropriate use of catheters: a multicentre, mixed-methods study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of de-implementation of low-value healthcare practices: an overview of systematic reviews.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Enablers and barriers to a quaternary prevention approach: a qualitative study of field experts.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Why Reducing Low-Value Care Fails to Bend the Cost Curve, and Why We Should Do it Anyway.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Development of the SPREAD framework to support the scaling of de-implementation strategies: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Article
- General practitioner gender and use of diagnostic procedures: a French cross-sectional study in training practices.BMJ open · 2022Article
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
backgroundIt is recognised that medical tests are overused in primary care; however, it is unclear how best to reduce their use.
aimTo identify which strategies are effective in reducing the use of low-value medical tests in primary care settings. DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review.
methodThe databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Rx for Change were searched (January 1990 to November 2019) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated strategies to reduce the use of low-value medical tests in primary care settings. Two reviewers selected eligible RCTs, extracted data, and assessed their risk of bias.
resultsOf the 16 RCTs included in the review, 11 reported a statistically significant reduction in the use of low-value medical tests. The median of the differences between the relative reductions in the intervention and control arms was 17% (interquartile range 12% to 24%). Strategies using reminders or audit/feedback showed larger reduction than those without these components (22% versus 14%, and 22% versus 13%, respectively) and patient-targeted strategies showed larger reductions than those not targeted at patients (51% versus 17%). Very few studies investigated the sustainability of the effect, adverse events, cost-effectiveness, or patient-reported outcomes related to reducing the use of low-value tests.
conclusionThis review indicates that it is possible to reduce the use of low-value medical tests in primary care, especially by using multiple components including reminders, audit/feedback, and patient-targeted interventions. To implement these strategies widely in primary care settings, more research is needed not only to investigate their effectiveness, but also to examine adverse events, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes.
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.