ArticleAcademic pathology2022
Current state of laboratory test utilization practices in the clinical laboratory.
Article in Academic pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic stewardship perceptions and practices among microbiology laboratories: a national survey from the American Society for Microbiology.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Laboratory and Medicine 2.1: Care for What You Wish for.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Review
- Novel approach to the codesign of a tailored intervention bundle: applying theory with pragmatism.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Approaches to developing and implementing a molecular diagnostics stewardship program for infectious diseases: an ASM Laboratory Practices Subcommittee report.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Review
- A 5-step root cause analysis model for test overutilization: A study on its application to plasma transferrin testing.American journal of clinical pathology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Appropriate laboratory test utilization is of growing interest in the face of rising healthcare costs and documented evidence of over- and under-utilization. Building from published literature, laboratory organizations have recently published guidelines for establishing laboratory utilization management programs. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have consistently struggled to define rigorous evidence-based best practice recommendations due to the paucity of published data or the heterogeneity of available data. We sought to gain information about utilization practices and programs currently in use and which factors contribute to their success by distributing a survey among laboratory professionals. The survey received seventy-four eligible respondents. We observed a wide range in the duration of laboratory utilization programs and the number of stewardship initiatives. In addition, there was great variety in the utilization practices used and the tests or processes targeted by programs. There was similarity in how initiatives are evaluated and who is involved with utilization programs. Finally, respondents often credited a multidisciplinary committee, support from leadership, and strong IT support/data access as important factors for their program's perceived success. Many of these factors agree with previously published literature.
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.