ArticleBJGP open2022
Redundant laboratory testing on referral from general practice to the outpatient clinic: a post-hoc analysis.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health inequalities and trends in heart failure diagnosis in primary care in England, 2000-21: a national retrospective cohort data-linkage study.The Lancet. Primary care · 2025Article
- Towards mitigating overcrowding in urban Indian healthcare facilities: stakeholder perception analysis for existing and potential new patient referral mechanisms.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Developing core indicators for identifying people at risk of delayed heart failure diagnosis.BMC primary care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInappropriately repeated laboratory testing is a commonly occurring problem. However, this has not been studied extensively in the outpatient clinic after referral by GPs.
aimThe aim of this study was to investigate how often laboratory tests ordered by the GP were repeated on referral to the outpatient clinic, and how many of the normal test results remained normal on repetition. DESIGN &
settingThis is a post-hoc analysis of a study on laboratory testing strategies in patients newly referred to the outpatient clinic between April 2015 and April 2017.
methodAll patients who had a referral letter including laboratory test results ordered by the GP were included. These results were compared with the laboratory test results ordered in the outpatient clinic.
resultsData were available for 295 patients, 191 of which had post-visit testing done. In this group, 56% of tests ordered by the GP were repeated. Tests with abnormal results were repeated more frequently than tests with normal results (65% versus 53%;
conclusionLaboratory tests ordered by the GP are commonly repeated on referral to the outpatient clinic. The number of test results remaining normal on repetition suggests a high level of redundancy in laboratory test repetition.
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.