ArticleActa neurochirurgica2022
International practice variation in perioperative laboratory testing in glioblastoma patients-a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. 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.
- In-hospital costs of malignant brain tumor surgery: A systematic review and quality assessment.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Review
- Practice variation in re-resection for recurrent glioblastoma: A nationwide survey among Dutch neuro-oncology specialists.Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough standard-of-care has been defined for the treatment of glioblastoma patients, substantial practice variation exists in the day-to-day clinical management. This study aims to compare the use of laboratory tests in the perioperative care of glioblastoma patients between two tertiary academic centers-Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), Boston, USA, and University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
methodsAll glioblastoma patients treated according to standard-of-care between 2005 and 2013 were included. We compared the number of blood drawings and laboratory tests performed during the 70-day perioperative period using a Poisson regression model, as well as the estimated laboratory costs per patient. Additionally, we compared the likelihood of an abnormal test result using a generalized linear mixed effects model.
resultsAfter correction for age, sex, IDH1 status, postoperative KPS score, length of stay, and survival status, the number of blood drawings and laboratory tests during the perioperative period were 3.7-fold (p < 0.001) and 4.7-fold (p < 0.001) higher, respectively, in BWH compared to UMCU patients. The estimated median laboratory costs per patient were 82 euros in UMCU and 256 euros in BWH. Furthermore, the likelihood of an abnormal test result was lower in BWH (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, p < 0.001), except when the prior test result was abnormal as well (OR 2.09, p < 0.001).
conclusionsOur results suggest a substantially lower clinical threshold for ordering laboratory tests in BWH compared to UMCU. Further investigating the clinical consequences of laboratory testing could identify over and underuse, decrease healthcare costs, and reduce unnecessary discomfort that patients are exposed to.
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.