Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33278890›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2020

GP's perspectives on laboratory test use for monitoring long-term conditions: an audit of current testing practice.

Martha M C Elwenspoek, Ed Mann, Katharine Alsop, Hannah Clark, Rita Patel, Jessica C Watson, Penny Whiting

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evidence-based blood tests for monitoring adults with hypertension in primary care: rapid review, routine data analyses, and consensus study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Review
  3. Adults with hypertension: recommendations for minimum standards rather than optimal monitoring?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Evidence-based tests to monitor adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: rapid reviews and consensus process.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Martha M C ElwenspoekThe National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, 9th Floor, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK. martha.elwenspoek@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9824-9335
Ed MannTyntesfield Medical Group, Bristol, BS48 2XX, UK.
Katharine AlsopNightingale Valley Practice, Bristol, BS4 4HU, UK.
Hannah ClarkPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Rita PatelThe National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, 9th Floor, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.
Jessica C WatsonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Penny WhitingThe National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, 9th Floor, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBEcclesfield GP · GBFlorence Nightingale Foundation · GB

Funding

Doctoral Research Fellowship from the National Institute for Health Research NIHR-2016-09-034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe have shown previously that current recommendations in UK guidelines for monitoring long-term conditions are largely based on expert opinion. Due to a lack of robust evidence on optimal monitoring strategies and testing intervals, the guidelines are unclear and incomplete. This uncertainty may underly variation in testing that has been observed across the UK between GP practices and regions.

methodsOur objective was to audit current testing practices of GPs in the UK; in particular, perspectives on laboratory tests for monitoring long-term conditions, the workload, and how confident GPs are in ordering and interpreting these tests. We designed an online survey consisting of multiple-choice and open-ended questions that was promoted on social media and in newsletters targeting GPs practicing in UK. The survey was live between October-November 2019. The results were analysed using a mixed-methods approach.

resultsThe survey was completed by 550 GPs, of whom 69% had more than 10 years of experience. The majority spent more than 30 min per day on testing (78%), but only half of the respondents felt confident in dealing with abnormal results (53%). There was a high level of disagreement for whether liver function tests and full blood counts should be done 'routinely', 'sometimes', or 'never' in patients with a certain long-term condition. The free text comments revealed three common themes: (1) pressures that promote over-testing, i.e. guidelines or protocols, workload from secondary care, fear of missing something, patient expectations; (2) negative consequences of over-testing, i.e. increased workload and patient harm; and (3) uncertainties due to lack of evidence and unclear guidelines.

conclusionThese results confirm the variation that has been observed in test ordering data. The results also show that most GPs spent a significant part of their day ordering and interpreting monitoring tests. The lack of confidence in knowing how to act on abnormal test results underlines the urgent need for robust evidence on optimal testing and the development of clear and unambiguous testing recommendations. Uncertainties surrounding optimal testing has resulted in an over-use of tests, which leads to a waste of resources, increased GP workload and potential patient harm.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineWorkloadAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesChronic disease monitoringGeneral practiceOptimal testing

Identifiers

PMID33278890
PMCPMC7719260
OpenAlexW3110008920

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.