Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37783511›Full record

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.

Jessica Watson, Alexander Burrell, Polly Duncan, Ian Bennett-Britton, Sam Hodgson, Samuel Wd Merriel, Salman Waqar, Penny F Whiting, Primary care Academic CollaboraTive

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Review
  2. 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 · 2025
    Review
  3. Observational
  4. 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 · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jessica WatsonNational Institute for Health and Care Research doctoral research fellow.ORCID 0000-0002-8177-6438
Alexander BurrellNational Institute for Health and Care Research doctoral research fellow.ORCID 0000-0003-0800-3452
Polly DuncanNational Institute for Health and Care Research doctoral research fellow.ORCID 0000-0002-2244-3254
Ian Bennett-BrittonCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0001-5634-2665
Sam HodgsonWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London.ORCID 0000-0002-5610-850X
Samuel Wd MerrielExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care, Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter; Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0003-2919-9087
Salman WaqarDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London.ORCID 0000-0001-7886-873X
Penny F WhitingPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0003-1138-5682
Primary care Academic CollaboraTive
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBImperial College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Electronic Health RecordsPrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleGeneral PracticeHematologic TestsHumansMaleMedical AuditMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited Kingdomblood testsclinical decision-makingcollaborative researchdiagnosisovertestingprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID37783511
PMCPMC10562996
OpenAlexW4384339507

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.