ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2026
Optimization of protein electrophoresis test orders: results after the implementation of a protocol based on scientific recommendations.
Article in Advances in laboratory medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Serum protein electrophoresis is a valuable tool for diagnosing and monitoring monoclonal gammopathies, but its widespread use outside this context may be clinically unjustified. To promote more rational test ordering, a demand optimization protocol has been designed and implemented in the Valladolid Oeste Health Area (ASVAO), aligned with AEBM-ML and SEQC-ML recommendations. Methods: A retrospective observational and interventional study was conducted. The protocol included automated request blocks for patients under 40, revision of analytical profiles, electronic alerts, and automatic inclusion based on specific biochemical alterations. The protocol was disseminated and training was provided to ordering physicians in both primary care and hospital settings. Structural, process, and activity indicators have been monitored from January 2023 to June 2025. Results: Orders in patients under 50 years decreased from 23.5 % in 2023 to 14.1 % in 2025. The proportion of orders for patients ≥50 years exceeded the target (>0.80) in 2025. Inappropriate analytical profiles have been eliminated, although the rate of orders without clinical or analytical justification remained elevated (0.53 in 2025). Test volume per inhabitant remained stable. Primary Care, Gastroenterology, Nephrology, and Pediatrics significantly reduced testing in younger patients, while Rheumatology increased it. Conclusions: The protocol effectively improved test appropriateness, particularly regarding age targeting and the removal of automated orders. However, unjustified orders persist. Ongoing monitoring of indicators is recommended to consolidate improvements and address deviations.
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.