ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2025
Where Are the Greatest Risks for Choosing Unwisely? A Survey of Emergency Department Clinicians.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 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.
- Where Are the Greatest Risks for Choosing Unwisely? A Survey of Emergency Department Clinicians.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality improvement activities targeting low-value care are important to ensure that scarce healthcare resources are used responsibly. However, there has been little systematic research into what diagnostic testing is considered by emergency department (ED) clinicians to be at risk of unwarranted variation or potentially low value.
objectivesThis study aimed to determine the views of ED clinicians on which diagnostic tests are highest risk for variation and/or low-value care.
methodsA voluntary electronic survey was distributed to emergency clinicians across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Respondents were asked to identify which investigations were high risk for unwarranted variation and/or low value.
resultsThere were 184 responses (75 doctors, 82 nurses, and 27 other) analysed. Investigations identified included D-dimer (42%), venous blood gas (VBG) (39%), C-reactive protein (CRP) (35%), and plain x-rays of the abdomen (35%). Compared to nursing staff, medical staff perceived CRP (51% vs. 24%), urine drug screening (55% vs. 21%), clotting profile (48% vs. 24%), salicylate level (29% vs. 7%), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (41% vs. 10%), and abdominal x-ray (67% vs. 16%) at higher risk. D-dimer and VBG were seen to be high risk by both groups. Routinely ordered tests (e.g., full blood examination) were considered relatively low risk.
conclusionsSeveral commonly used investigations are perceived to be at high risk of unwarranted variation or low-value care. These risks are perceived differently by different groups of emergency clinicians. Potential future directions include understanding the reasons for variation and efforts to reduce variation, including audit and feedback.
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.