ArticleBJGP open2023
Variation in laboratory testing for patients with long-term conditions: a longitudinal cohort study in UK primary care.
Article in BJGP open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Flying blind? Recommendations for monitoring of 10 common chronic diseases in guidelines from Germany, England, and Europe - a modified systematic review.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Evidence-based blood tests for monitoring adults with hypertension in primary care: rapid review, routine data analyses, and consensus study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Review
- Impact of the MHRA safety update on vitamin BBMC primary care · 2025Article
- Evidence-based tests to monitor adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: rapid reviews and consensus process.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Review
- Observational
- Liver function tests in patients with hypertension in primary care: a prospective cohort study.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of laboratory testing has increased in the UK over the past few decades, with considerable geographical variation.
aimTo evaluate what laboratory tests are used to monitor people with hypertension, type 2 (T2) diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) and assess variation in test use in UK primary care. DESIGN &
settingLongitudinal cohort study of people registered with UK general practices between June 2013 and May 2018 and previously diagnosed with hypertension, T2 diabetes, or CKD.
methodClinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care data linked to ethnic group and deprivation was used to examine testing rates over time, by GP practice, age, sex, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation, with age-sex standardisation.
resultsNearly 1 million patients were included, and more than 27 million tests. The most ordered tests were for renal function (1463 per 1000 person-years), liver function (1063 per 1000 person-years), and full blood count (FBC; 996 per 1000 person-years). There was evidence of undertesting (compared with current guidelines) for HbA1c and albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) or microalbumin, and potential overtesting of lipids, FBC, liver function, and thyroid function. Some GP practices had up to 27 times higher testing rates than others (HbA1c testing among patients with CKD).
conclusionTesting rates are no longer increasing, but they are not always within the guidelines for monitoring long-term conditions (LTCs). There was considerable variation by GP practice, indicating uncertainty over the most appropriate testing frequencies for different conditions. Standardising the monitoring of LTCs based on the latest evidence would provide greater consistency of access to monitoring tests.
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.