Observational studyBMJ open2026
De-implementation of healthcare interventions post-COVID-19: evidence from the Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) programme in England.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe explored the effectiveness of the Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) programme which aimed to reduce the number of inappropriate procedures or diagnostic tests ('interventions') in the English National Health Service (NHS). For 12 interventions, we evaluated whether expected intervention counts fell or geographical variation was reduced across England following the publication of EBI Wave 2 guidance in November 2020.
designWe conducted a retrospective observational study utilising routine hospital data. We applied a controlled interrupted time series analysis to examine both step and trend changes in the use of EBI interventions following the publication of the EBI Wave 2. We compared geographical variation in intervention rates pre-EBI and post-EBI.
settingEnglish hospitals where NHS funded elective healthcare interventions are performed.
participantsPatients who had NHS-funded elective interventions in England from March 2018 to February 2022 inclusive.
resultsHalf of the 12 interventions evaluated had significantly lower counts compared with their controls by February 2022. For five of these interventions, counts were between 20% and 57% lower than expected. This was the result of either (1) a larger fall in procedure counts by the end of the pandemic period (n=4 interventions); (2) declining counts post-pandemic (n=1); or (3) a combination of both (n=1). The remaining six interventions had similar or greater than expected counts by February 2022. There was limited evidence of reductions in geographical variation in procedure rates after publication of EBI guidance.
conclusionsWave 2 of the EBI programme had a mixed impact on the use of the interventions targeted. There were some successes, however, following significant reduction in the use of elective care during the pandemic, half of the interventions evaluated returned to utilisation at or above predicted levels.
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.