Observational studyInternational journal of clinical practice2021
Potentially redundant repeat liver function test ordering practices in australian hospitals: A 5-year multicentre retrospective observational study.
Observational study in International journal of clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Potentially redundant repeat liver function test ordering practices in australian hospitals: A 5-year multicentre retrospective observational study.International journal of clinical practice · 2021Observational
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRepeat Liver Function Tests (LFTs) are often necessary for monitoring purposes, but retesting within a short time interval may suggest potentially redundant repeat test (PRRT) ordering practices. We aimed to determine the proportion of potentially redundant repeat LFT ordering and identify associated factors in hospitals.
methodsA 5-year (2014-2018) retrospective cohort study in six hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. A total of 131 885 patient admissions with repeat LFTs in the general ward (n = 102 852) and intensive care unit (ICU) (n = 29 033) met the inclusion criteria. Existing guidelines do not support retesting LFT for at least 48-72 hours. We used 24 hours as a conservative minimum retesting interval to examine PRRT ordering. We fit binary logistic regression to identify factors associated with PRRT ordering in two conditions with the highest repeat LFTs.
resultsThere were a total of 298 567 repeat LFTs (medians of 2 repeats/admission and retesting interval of 25.6 hours) in the general ward and 205 929 (medians of 4 repeats/admission and retesting interval of 24.1 hours) in the ICU. The proportions of PRRT ordering were 35.2% (105 227/298 567) and 47.7% (98 307/205 929) in the general ward and ICU, respectively. The proportions of patients who received at least one PRRT were 52.3% (53 766/102 852) and 83.9% (24 365/29 033) in the general ward and ICU, respectively. Age, gender and the number of comorbidities and procedures were associated with the likelihood of ordering PRRT depending on the settings.
conclusionRepeat LFT testing is common in Australian hospitals, often within 24 hours, despite guidelines not supporting too-early repeat testing. Further research should be conducted to understand whether better adherence to existing guidelines is required, or if there is any case for guidelines to be updated based on certain patient subpopulations.
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.