Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35508322›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2022

Why Test study protocol: a UK-wide audit using the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) to explore the reasons for primary care testing.

Alexander Burrell, Polly Duncan, Ian Bennett-Britton, Sam Hodgson, Samuel Wd Merriel, Salman Waqar, Penny Whiting, Jessica Watson, Primary Care Academic Collaborative (PACT)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Exploration of reasons for primary care testing (the Why Test study): a UK-wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Alexander BurrellCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Polly DuncanCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ian Bennett-BrittonPrimary Care Research Centre, School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Sam HodgsonPrimary Care Research Centre, School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5610-850X
Samuel Wd MerrielExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2919-9087
Salman WaqarNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7886-873X
Penny WhitingCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jessica WatsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK jessica.watson@bristol.ac.uk.
Primary Care Academic Collaborative (PACT)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of blood tests done in primary care has been increasing over the past 20 years. Some estimates suggest that up to one-quarter of these tests may not have been needed. This could lead to a cascade effect of further investigations, appointments, or referrals, as well as anxiety for patients, increased workload, and costs to the health service. To better understand the impact and sequelae of blood tests on patients, it is necessary to know why blood tests are requested and what is done with the results.

aimTo explore who orders blood tests and why, and how test results are actioned in primary care. DESIGN &

settingRetrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices across the UK.

methodThe Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT), a UK-wide network of primary care health professionals, will be utilised to collect data from individual practices. PACT members will be asked to review the electronic health records of 50 patients who had recent blood tests in their practice, and manually extract anonymised data on who requested the test, the indication, the result, and subsequent actions. Data will also be collected from PACT members to assess the feasibility of the collaborative model.

conclusionPACT offers a unique opportunity to extract clinical data which cannot otherwise be obtained. Understanding the indications for tests will help identify priority areas for research to optimise testing and patient safety in primary care.

Indexed as

clinical decision-makingclinical laboratory techniquescollaborative researchelectronic health recordsfeasibility studiesgeneral practicehematologic testsprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID35508322
PMCPMC9680757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.