Do We Know What Inappropriate Laboratory Utilization Is?: A Systematic Review of Laboratory Clinical Audits
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Laboratory utilization has steadily increased, and some studies suggest inappropriate utilization. Therefore, we wished to assess studies that measure inappropriate laboratory use in light of methodological criteria. DESIGN: Systematic review of published studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, HEALTHSTAR, and EMBASE databases were searched from 1966 to September 1997 using a broad and inclusive strategy with no language restriction. In addition, the references of all retrieved studies and 3 textbooks on diagnostic testing were hand-searched. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that provided and applied criteria for inappropriate laboratory use. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were categorized based on whether the criteria were implicit (objective criteria for inappropriate utilization not provided or very broad) or explicit. Guidelines for evaluation were applied to each study by a single reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-four eligible studies were identified. Eleven studies used implicit criteria for inappropriate laboratory utilization and contained small numbers of patients or physicians. Most did not adequately assess the reliability of the implicit criteria. Thirty-three studies used explicit criteria based on the appropriateness of test choice, frequency, and timing, as well as the probability of a positive result. There were large variations in the estimates of inappropriate laboratory use (4.5%-95%). Evidence supporting the explicit criteria was frequently weak by the standards suggested for therapeutic maneuvers, but was nonetheless compelling based on principles of physiology, pharmacology, and probability. CONCLUSIONS: Many studies identify inappropriate laboratory use based on implicit or explicit criteria that do not meet methodological standards suggested for audits of therapeutic maneuvers. Researchers should develop alternative evidentiary standards for measuring inappropriateness of laboratory test use.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Objective pre-defined explicit criteria were used to determine whether tests were redundant.
“We used objective pre-defined explicit criteria to determine redundancy of tests (criteria specified in Table 3).”
From Notification of Abnormal Lab Test Results in an Electronic Medical Record: Do Any Safety Concerns Remain? (2010) · cites this paper as [20]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 130 · Cited by 373
- Authors
- van Walraven, C., & Naylor, C. D.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-08-12
- Volume
- 280
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 550
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1996864496
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 130
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 24.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- diagnostic testing, methodological standards, overuse of laboratory tests, evidence-based standards
- MeSH terms
- Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Health Services Misuse, Humans, Utilization Review, Reproducibility of Results, Clinical Laboratory Techniques
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review