Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33199293›Full record

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.

Toshihiko Takada, Pauline Heus, Sander van Doorn, Christiana A Naaktgeboren, Jan-Willem Weenink, Simone A van Dulmen, Lotty Hooft

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The impact of Choosing WiselyBMC health services research · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Toshihiko TakadaJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Pauline HeusJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht; Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Sander van DoornJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Christiana A NaaktgeborenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Jan-Willem WeeninkErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Simone A van DulmenRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen.
Lotty HooftJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht; Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Primary Health CareHumansinvestigative techniquesmedical overusemedical testsprimary caresystematic reviewunnecessary procedures

Identifiers

PMID33199293
PMCPMC7679149

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.