ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
To Expand the Evidence Base About Harms from Tests and Treatments.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Women's interest, knowledge, and attitudes relating to anti-Mullerian hormone testing: a randomized controlled trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Trial
- Phenotypes of Management Reasoning Struggle in Postgraduate Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Could Low-Value Diagnostic Tests be Compounding Access Block? A Single-Site, Cross-Sectional Study.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2025Article
- Drivers of low-value diagnostic tests in emergency medicine practice: a qualitative descriptive study.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2025Article
- Social Media Posts About Medical Tests With Potential for Overdiagnosis.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- A Nonintrusive, Normative Nudge Intervention to Reduce Four Low-Value Tests in a Large Safety Net System.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Low-Value Prostate-Specific Antigen Test for Prostate Cancer Screening and Subsequent Health Care Utilization and Spending.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.Annals of internal medicine · 2022Review
- Associations Between Low-Value Medication in Dementia and Healthcare Costs.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Article
- Short and long-term psychosocial consequences of participating in a colorectal cancer screening programme: a matched longitudinal study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2022Article
- Longitudinal Content Analysis of the Characteristics and Expected Impact of Low-Value Services Identified in US Choosing Wisely Recommendations.JAMA internal medicine · 2022Article
- Adverse Events and Hospital-Acquired Conditions Associated With Potential Low-Value Care in Medicare Beneficiaries.JAMA health forum · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rigorous evidence about the broad range of harms that might be experienced by a patient in the course of testing and treatment is sparse. We aimed to generate recommendations for how researchers might more comprehensively evaluate potential harms of healthcare interventions, to allow clinicians and patients to better include this evidence in clinical decision-making. We propose seven domains of harms of tests and treatments that are relevant to patients: (1) physical impairment, (2) psychological distress, (3) social disruption, (4) disruption in connection to healthcare, (5) labeling, (6) financial impact, and (7) treatment burden. These domains will include a range of severity of harms and variation in timing after testing or treatment, attributable to the service itself or a resulting care cascade. Although some new measures may be needed, diverse data and tools are available to allow the assessment of harms comprehensively across these domains. We encourage researchers to evaluate harms in sub-populations, since the harms experienced may differ importantly by demographics, social determinants, presence of comorbid illness, psychological state, and other characteristics. Regulators, funders, and editors might require either assessment or reporting of harms in each domain or require justification for inclusion and exclusion of different domains.
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.