Dataset Information

The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Laboratory testing is the single highest-volume medical activity and drives clinical decision-making across medicine. However, the overall landscape of inappropriate testing, which is thought to be dominated by repeat testing, is unclear. Systematic differences in initial vs. repeat testing, measurement criteria, and other factors would suggest new priorities for improving laboratory testing. METHODS: A multi-database systematic review was performed on published studies from 1997-2012 using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Over- vs. underutilization, initial vs. repeat testing, low- vs. high-volume testing, subjective vs. objective appropriateness criteria, and restrictive vs. permissive appropriateness criteria, among other factors, were assessed. RESULTS: Overall mean rates of over- and underutilization were 20.6% (95% CI 16.2-24.9%) and 44.8% (95% CI 33.8-55.8%). Overutilization during initial testing (43.9%; 95% CI 35.4-52.5%) was six times higher than during repeat testing (7.4%; 95% CI 2.5-12.3%; P for stratum difference <0.001). Overutilization of low-volume tests (32.2%; 95% CI 25.0-39.4%) was three times that of high-volume tests (10.2%; 95% CI 2.6-17.7%; P<0.001). Overutilization measured according to restrictive criteria (44.2%; 95% CI 36.8-51.6%) was three times higher than for permissive criteria (12.0%; 95% CI 8.0-16.0%; P<0.001). Overutilization measured using subjective criteria (29.0%; 95% CI 21.9-36.1%) was nearly twice as high as for objective criteria (16.1%; 95% CI 11.0-21.2%; P?=?0.004). Together, these factors explained over half (54%) of the overall variability in overutilization. There were no statistically significant differences between studies from the United States vs. elsewhere (P?=?0.38) or among chemistry, hematology, microbiology, and molecular tests (P?=?0.05-0.65) and no robust statistically significant trends over time. CONCLUSIONS: The landscape of overutilization varies systematically by clinical setting (initial vs. repeat), test volume, and measurement criteria. Underutilization is also widespread, but understudied. Expanding the current focus on reducing repeat testing to include ordering the right test during initial evaluation may lead to fewer errors and better care.

SUBMITTER: Zhi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3829815 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis.

Zhi Ming M Ding Eric L EL Theisen-Toupal Jesse J Whelan Julia J Arnaout Ramy R

PloS one 20131115 11

<h4>Background</h4>Laboratory testing is the single highest-volume medical activity and drives clinical decision-making across medicine. However, the overall landscape of inappropriate testing, which is thought to be dominated by repeat testing, is unclear. Systematic differences in initial vs. repeat testing, measurement criteria, and other factors would suggest new priorities for improving laboratory testing.<h4>Methods</h4>A multi-database systematic review was performed on published studies ...[more]

PMID: 24260139

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn most high HIV burden countries, many HIV patients do not have reliable access to required diagnostic laboratory tests. Task shifting of clinical tasks to lower cadres of health care workers and lay counselors has been successful in scaling up treatment for HIV and may also be an effective strategy in expanding access to essential diagnostic testing.MethodsWe screened major electronic databases between 1 January 2005 to 26 August 2018 to identify studies assessing ease of use and accuracy of task shifting of HIV-related diagnostic testing and/or specimen collection to non-laboratory health staff. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts for studies that analyzed diagnostic accuracy, patient impact, ease-of-use, or cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed for quality, bias, and applicability following the QUADAS-2 framework. We generated summary estimates using random-effects meta-analyses.ResultsWe identified 42 relevant studies. Overall, point-of-care CD4 testing performed by non-laboratory staff had a mean bias of -54.44 (95% CI: -72.40 --36.48) compared to conventional laboratory-based. Though studies were limited, the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care alanine transaminase enzyme (ALT) and hemoglobin testing performed by non-laboratory staff was comparable to conventional laboratory-based testing by laboratory professionals. Point-of-care testing and/or specimen collection were generally found to be acceptable and easy to use for non-laboratory staff.ConclusionsTask shifting of testing using point-of-care technologies to non-laboratory staff was comparable to laboratory professionals operating the same technology in the laboratory. Some variability was observed comparing the performance of point-of-care CD4 testing by non-laboratory staff to conventional laboratory-based technologies by laboratory professionals indicating potential lower performance was likely technological rather than operator caused. The benefits of task shifting of testing may outweigh any possible harms as task shifting allows for increased decentralization, access of specific diagnostics, and faster result delivery.

Dataset Information

The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis.

Publications

The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets