Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36410390›Full record

ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2023

Choosing which in-hospital laboratory tests to target for intervention: a scoping review.

Eyal Podolsky, Natasha Hudek, Christopher McCudden, Justin Presseau, Sezgi Yanikomeroglu, Melissa Brouwers, Jamie C Brehaut

Open access · bronzeAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eyal PodolskySchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Natasha HudekClinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Christopher McCuddenClinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Justin PresseauSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sezgi YanikomerogluClinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Melissa BrouwersSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jamie C BrehautSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ottawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSome laboratory testing practices may be of low value, leading to wasted resources and potential patient harm. Our scoping review investigated factors and processes that developers report using to inform decisions about what tests to target for practice improvement.

methodsWe searched Medline on May 30th, 2019 and June 28th, 2021 and included guidelines, recommendation statements, or empirical studies related to test ordering practices. Studies were included if they were conducted in a tertiary care setting, reported making a choice about a specific test requiring intervention, and reported at least one factor informing that choice. We extracted descriptive details, tests chosen, processes used to make the choice, and factors guiding test choice.

resultsFrom 114 eligible studies, we identified 30 factors related to test choice including clinical value, cost, prevalence of test, quality of test, and actionability of test results. We identified nine different processes used to inform decisions regarding where to spend intervention resources.

conclusionsIntervention developers face difficult choices when deciding where to put scarce resources intended to improve test utilization. Factors and processes identified here can be used to inform a framework to help intervention developers make choices relevant to improving testing practices.

Indexed as

Clinical RelevanceDiagnostic Tests, RoutineLaboratories, HospitalHumanslaboratory testinglow-valuescoping review

Identifiers

PMID36410390
PMCPMC9876731
OpenAlexW4309667981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.