ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2025
Breaking the guidelines: how financial unawareness fuels guideline deviations and inefficient DVT diagnostics.
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and evaluation of a risk prediction model for preoperative lower extremity deep vein thrombosis in orthopedic patients.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine factors impacting diagnostic evaluation of suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by analyzing the test ordering patterns and provider decision-making within a universal health coverage system in Hungary.
methodsWe analyzed test orders for suspected DVT between 2007 and 2020, and the financial framework influencing diagnostic practices. An anonymous survey was also conducted among Emergency Department physicians to explore factors influencing diagnostic decision-making.
resultsA total of 6,821 patients were identified. From 2008 to 2013, the most common diagnostic approach combined D-dimer and duplex ultrasound tests (64.5 %), followed by sole ultrasound (20.5 %) and sole D-dimer (15 %) testing. A marked shift occurred from 2014 onward, with sole ultrasound rising to 88 % of cases by 2018-2020, while combined testing and sole D-dimer orders decreased to 7.9 and 4 %, respectively. In survey results, time efficiency emerged as a key factor for bypassing D-dimer testing, cited by 75 % of physicians. 45 % believed D-dimer costs were comparable to or higher than duplex ultrasound. Financial analysis revealed that the outdated performance points system misrepresented actual costs, resulting in duplex ultrasound being significantly underfunded, which impacts the Radiology Department. This discrepancy contributes to higher national level expenses, driven by the increased reliance on ultrasound.
conclusionsWe found diagnostic practices deviating from international diagnostic guidelines, with an increase in duplex ultrasound over D-dimer. This shift, allowed by an outdated financing structure, increases overall costs for the healthcare system. Revising financial frameworks to reflect true costs is essential for sustainable operations in universal health coverage systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39752665What 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.