Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35379642›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2022

Downstream activities after laboratory testing in primary care: an exploratory outcome of the ELMO cluster randomised trial (Electronic Laboratory Medicine Ordering with evidence-based order sets in primary care).

Veerle Piessens, Nicolas Delvaux, Stefan Heytens, Bert Aertgeerts, An De Sutter

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02950142 (The Effect of Evidence-based Order Sets Within a CPOE System on the Quantity and Quality of Laboratory Test Ordering in Family Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02950142 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Evidence-based Order Sets Within a CPOE System on the Quantity and Quality of Laboratory Test Ordering in Family Practice: a Cluster Randomised Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitaire Ziekenhuizen KU LeuvenRan2017 to 2019Enrolled288ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Cardiovascular Diseases, FatigueArmsCPOE with order sets for lab testing, CPOE without order sets for lab testing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Veerle PiessensPublic Health and Primary Care, Ghent University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gent, Belgium veerle.piessens@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-2305-1762
Nicolas DelvauxPublic Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7335-4075
Stefan HeytensPublic Health and Primary Care, Ghent University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1097-4987
Bert AertgeertsPublic Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
An De SutterPublic Health and Primary Care, Ghent University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the rate and type of downstream activities (DAs) after laboratory testing in primary care, with a specific focus on check-up laboratory panels, and to explore the effect of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for laboratory ordering on these DAs.

designCluster randomised clinical trial.

setting72 primary care practices in Belgium, with 272 general practitioners (GPs), randomly assigned to the intervention arm or the control arm.

participantsThe study included 10 270 lab panels from 9683 primary care patients (women 55.1%, mean age 56.5). All adult patients who consulted one of the participating GPs during the trial period and needed a laboratory exam were eligible for participation.

interventionsGPs in the intervention group used a CDSS integrated into their online laboratory ordering system, while GPs in the control arm used their lab ordering system as usual. The trial duration was 6 months, with another 6 months follow-up.

main outcome measuresThis publication reports on the exploratory outcome of DAs after an initial laboratory exam and the effect of the CDSS on these DAs.

results19.7% of all laboratory panels resulted in further diagnostic procedures (95% CI 18.9% to 20.5%) and 19% (95% CI 18.2% to 19.7%) in treatment changes. Check-up laboratory exams showed similar rates of DAs, with 17.5% (95% CI 13.8% to 21.2%) diagnostic DAs and 18.9% (95% CI 13.9% to 23.9%) treatment changes. Using the CDSS resulted in a significant reduction in downstream referrals (-2.4%; 95% CI -4.2% to -0.6%; p=0008), imaging and endoscopies (-0.9%; 95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%; p=0026) and treatment changes (-5.4%; 95% CI -9.5% to -1.2%; p=0.01).

conclusionThis is the largest study so far to examine DAs after laboratory testing. It shows that almost one in three laboratory exams leads to further DAs, even in check-up panels. Using a CDSS for laboratory orders may reduce the rate of some DAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02950142.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMedicineAdultElectronicsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRecordspreventive medicineprimary carequality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35379642
PMCPMC8981323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.