ArticleCureus2025
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Family Medicine Physicians Regarding the Costs of Common Laboratory Investigations in the Chronic Disease Clinic at King Saud Medical City: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the awareness of family medicine physicians regarding the cost of common laboratory investigations in chronic diseases. It also aims to evaluate their awareness of how costs could affect their medical decision-making. METHODOLOGY: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among all family medicine physicians working in the King Saud Medical City. Our data were collected using questionnaires distributed to participants by group members. Both a paper-based version and an online version through SurveyMonkey (Momentive, CA, USA) were used.
resultsA total of 95 family physicians were included in this study, and nearly half of them, 48 (50.5%), were males. The majority, 66 (69.5%), 72 (75.8%), 70 (73.3%), and 73 (76.4%), physicians underestimated the cost of complete blood count, coagulation profile, iron studies, and liver profile, respectively. The least correctly estimated tests appear to be hemoglobin A1C and iron studies. Correct cost estimation was the highest in urine analysis (81, 85.3%). Work experience was significantly associated with the awareness about liver panel cost (P=0.040).
conclusionThe capacity of family physicians to correctly estimate the prices of various laboratory tests varies significantly, as this study shows. While most doctors predicted the cost of routine procedures, such as urine analysis, accurately, many had trouble with tests like thyroid panels and creatinine clearance. These results highlight the need for doctors to have a better understanding of costs associated with diagnostic tests since this is necessary to support the provision of cost-effective healthcare.
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.