Cited by 373Healthcare cost, quality, practicesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Do We Know What Inappropriate Laboratory Utilization Is?: A Systematic Review of Laboratory Clinical Audits

van Walraven, Carl, Naylor, C. David·1998·JAMA

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

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.280.6.550

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 130 · Cited by 373

Authors
van Walraven, C., & Naylor, C. D.
Venue
JAMA
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