ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2024
To test or to not test: A retrospective cross-sectional study on potentially inappropriate use of pathology testing in South Australian hospitals.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory Test Overuse and Compliance With Minimum Retesting Intervals in a Portuguese Healthcare Network.Cureus · 2026Article
- Preparation for blood tests: what can go wrong before the sample reaches the lab.Australian prescriber · 2025Review
- Knowledge and attitudes toward clinical laboratory medicine among undergraduate medical interns in China: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo measure rates of potentially inappropriate pathology testing in the hospital setting.
methodsRetrospective cross-sectional study in hospital setting from July 2021 to December 2021. We examined 3 potentially inappropriate uses: overordering, selection errors, and unnecessary repeat testing. Overordering included vitamin D and lipids (rarely required in acute hospital care). Selection error was the ratio of iron studies to standalone ferritin requests. Unnecessary repeats included any repeat vitamin D, lipids, iron, or ferritin in an episode of care or C-reactive protein (CRP) repeated within 3 days and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) within 7 days and repeated previously abnormal CRP and NT-proBNP tests. Costs of inappropriate tests were estimated using the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedules.
resultsAmong 55,904 test requests, 15% (n = 8120) were potentially inappropriate. Vitamin D was frequently ordered (n = 4498), as were lipids (n = 2872). Ratio of iron studies to standalone ferritin was 36. Of 19,233 repeat CRPs, 36% (n = 6947) were within 3 days and 62% (n = 179) of repeat NT-proBNPs were within 7 days of the first test. For initially abnormal tests, 89% of CRPs and 97% of NT-proBNPs remained abnormal. Inappropriate test costs accounted for 12% to 30% of costs.
conclusionsFrequent potential inappropriate use and selection of pathology tests was observed in South Australian hospitals.
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.