Dataset Information

Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Abnormal results of diagnostic laboratory tests can be difficult to interpret when disease probability is very low. Although most physicians generally do not use Bayesian calculations to interpret abnormal results, their estimates of pretest disease probability and reasons for ordering diagnostic tests may--in a more implicit manner--influence test interpretation and further management. A better understanding of this influence may help to improve test interpretation and management. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the influence of physicians' pretest disease probability estimates, and their reasons for ordering diagnostic tests, on test result interpretation, posttest probability estimates and further management. METHODS: Prospective study among 87 primary care physicians in the Netherlands who each ordered laboratory tests for 25 patients. They recorded their reasons for ordering the tests (to exclude or confirm disease or to reassure patients) and their pretest disease probability estimates. Upon receiving the results they recorded how they interpreted the tests, their posttest probability estimates and further management. Logistic regression was used to analyse whether the pretest probability and the reasons for ordering tests influenced the interpretation, the posttest probability estimates and the decisions on further management. RESULTS: The physicians ordered tests for diagnostic purposes for 1253 patients; 742 patients had an abnormal result (64%). Physicians' pretest probability estimates and their reasons for ordering diagnostic tests influenced test interpretation, posttest probability estimates and further management. Abnormal results of tests ordered for reasons of reassurance were significantly more likely to be interpreted as normal (65.8%) compared to tests ordered to confirm a diagnosis or exclude a disease (27.7% and 50.9%, respectively). The odds for abnormal results to be interpreted as normal were much lower when the physician estimated a high pretest disease probability, compared to a low pretest probability estimate (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.07-0.52, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation and management of abnormal test results were strongly influenced by physicians' estimation of pretest disease probability and by the reason for ordering the test. By relating abnormal laboratory results to their pretest expectations, physicians may seek a balance between over- and under-reacting to laboratory test results.

SUBMITTER: Houben PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2829524 | biostudies-other | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management.

Houben Paul H H PH van der Weijden Trudy T Winkens Bjorn B Winkens Ron A G RA Grol Richard P T M RP

BMC family practice 20100216

<h4>Background</h4>Abnormal results of diagnostic laboratory tests can be difficult to interpret when disease probability is very low. Although most physicians generally do not use Bayesian calculations to interpret abnormal results, their estimates of pretest disease probability and reasons for ordering diagnostic tests may--in a more implicit manner--influence test interpretation and further management. A better understanding of this influence may help to improve test interpretation and manage ...[more]

PMID: 20158908

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne of the current major factors of not following up on the abnormal test results is the lack of information about the test results and missing interpretations. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can become a solution to this problem. However, little is known how patients react to the automatically generated interpretations of the test results, and how this can affect a decision to follow up. In this research, we study how patients perceive the interpretations of the laboratory tests automatically generated by a clinical decision support system depending on how they receive these recommendations and how this affects the follow-up rate.MethodsA study of 3200 patients was done querying the regional patient registry. The patients were divided into 4 groups who received: 1. Recommendations automatically generated by a CDSS with a clear indication of their automatic nature. 2. Recommendations received personally from a doctor with a clear indication of their automatic nature. 3. Recommendations from a doctor with no indication of their automated generation. 4. No recommendations, only the test results. A follow-up rate was calculated as the proportion of patients referred to a laboratory service for a follow-up investigation after receiving a recommendation within two weeks after the first test with abnormal test results had been completed and the interpretation was delivered to the patient. The second phase of the study was a research of the patients' motivation. It was performed with a group of 789 patients.ResultsAll the patients who received interpretations on the abnormal test results demonstrated a significantly higher rate of follow-up (71%) in comparison to the patients who received only test results without interpretations (49%). Patients mention a time factor as a significant benefit of the automatically generated interpretations in comparison to the interpretations they can receive from a doctor.ConclusionThe results of the study show that delivering automatically generated interpretations of test results can support patients in making a decision to follow up. They are trusted by patients and raise their motivations and engagement.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient portals are considered valuable instruments for self-management of long term conditions, however, there are concerns over how patients might interpret and act on the clinical information they access. We hypothesized that visual cues improve patients' abilities to correctly interpret laboratory test results presented through patient portals. We also assessed, by applying eye-tracking methods, the relationship between risk interpretation and visual search behaviour. METHODS:We conducted a controlled study with 20 kidney transplant patients. Participants viewed three different graphical presentations in each of low, medium, and high risk clinical scenarios composed of results for 28 laboratory tests. After viewing each clinical scenario, patients were asked how they would have acted in real life if the results were their own, as a proxy of their risk interpretation. They could choose between: 1) Calling their doctor immediately (high interpreted risk); 2) Trying to arrange an appointment within the next 4 weeks (medium interpreted risk); 3) Waiting for the next appointment in 3 months (low interpreted risk). For each presentation, we assessed accuracy of patients' risk interpretation, and employed eye tracking to assess and compare visual search behaviour. RESULTS:Misinterpretation of risk was common, with 65% of participants underestimating the need for action across all presentations at least once. Participants found it particularly difficult to interpret medium risk clinical scenarios. Participants who consistently understood when action was needed showed a higher visual search efficiency, suggesting a better strategy to cope with information overload that helped them to focus on the laboratory tests most relevant to their condition. CONCLUSIONS:This study confirms patients' difficulties in interpreting laboratories test results, with many patients underestimating the need for action, even when abnormal values were highlighted or grouped together. Our findings raise patient safety concerns and may limit the potential of patient portals to actively involve patients in their own healthcare.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to survey obstetrician-gynecologists' cervical cancer screening practices and management of cervical abnormalities to ascertain adherence to guidelines.MethodsFrom January to July 2019, obstetrician-gynecologists at 5 St. Louis area hospitals were surveyed online about cervical cancer screening and management practices through 13 clinical vignettes. Survey scores and the American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) app use were compared using Mann-Whitney tests.ResultsWhen screening 30- to 65-year-old participants, 114 (98%) of the 116 total participants used co-testing, but only 71 (61%) screened at 5-year intervals. None used primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. For 21- to 29-year-old participants, 17 (15%) screened with annual cytology, whereas 14 (12%) used annual or every 3-year co-testing. Forty eight (41%) screened younger than 21 years, regardless of risk factors or only if immunocompromised. Eleven (9%) continued screening after total hysterectomy for benign indications. Only 2 (2%) responded to all clinical vignettes in adherence to guidelines. More than 30% of participants would pursue unnecessary HPV testing and/or loop electrosurgical excision procedure for persistent low-grade cytology. Fifty eight (48%) incorrectly reported hysterectomy as management for adenocarcinoma in situ on biopsy. Participants would undertreat young women with high-grade abnormalities including high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (48, 41%) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (65, 56%). Forty one (35%) reported exiting women from screening prematurely. The median score for participants using the ASCCP app was significantly greater than those who did not (79% vs 71%, p = .002).ConclusionsMidwestern obstetrician-gynecologists' adherence to the guidelines for cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal results is suboptimal. Although co-testing for women aged 30-65 years has been broadly adopted, primary HPV testing has not. Physicians overscreen, overtreat low-grade lesions, and undertreat high-grade lesions in young women.

Dataset Information

Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management.

Publications

Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets