ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024
Exploration of reasons for primary care testing (the Why Test study): a UK-wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- 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
- Climate change and primary care: how to reduce the carbon footprint of your practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Primary care physicians play a crucial role in diagnosing and managing rare eosinophilic diseases: HES and EGPA.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Patient safety in actioning and communicating blood test results in primary care: a UK wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT).BMJ open quality · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRates of blood testing have increased over the past two decades. Reasons for testing cannot easily be extracted from electronic health record databases.
aimTo explore who requests blood tests and why, and what the outcomes of testing are in UK primary care. DESIGN AND
settingA retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland was undertaken.
methodFifty-seven clinicians from the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) each reviewed the electronic health records of 50 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. Anonymised data were extracted including patient characteristics, who requested the tests, reasons for testing, test results, and outcomes of testing.
resultsData were collected from 2572 patients across 57 GP practices. The commonest reasons for testing in primary care were investigation of symptoms (43.2%), monitoring of existing disease (30.1%), monitoring of existing medications (10.1%), and follow up of previous abnormalities (6.8%); patient requested testing was rare in this study (1.5%). Abnormal and borderline results were common, with 26.6% of patients having completely normal test results. Around one-quarter of tests were thought to be partially or fully unnecessary when reviewed retrospectively by a clinical colleague. Overall, 6.2% of tests in primary care led to a new diagnosis or confirmation of a diagnosis.
conclusionThe utilisation of a national collaborative model (PACT) has enabled a unique exploration of the rationale and outcomes of blood testing in primary care, highlighting areas for future research and optimisation.
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.