Cited by 395Healthcare cost, quality, practicesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Principles for high-quality, high-value testing

Open access
Power, Michael, Fell, Greg, Wright, Michael·2013·Evidence Based Medicine

Abstract

A survey of doctors working in two large NHS hospitals identified over 120 laboratory tests, imaging investigations and investigational procedures that they considered not to be overused. A common suggestion in this survey was that more training was required. And, this prompted the development of a list of core principles for high-quality, high-value testing. The list can be used as a framework for training and as a reference source. The core principles are: (1) Base testing practices on the best available evidence. (2) Apply the evidence on test performance with careful judgement. (3) Test efficiently. (4) Consider the value (and affordability) of a test before requesting it. (5) Be aware of the downsides and drivers of overdiagnosis. (6) Confront uncertainties. (7) Be patient-centred in your approach. (8) Consider ethical issues. (9) Be aware of normal cognitive limitations and biases when testing. (10) Follow the ‘knowledge journey’ when teaching and learning these core principles.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/eb-2012-100645

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • An oPMN level >1.43 × 10^6/mL is a potentially useful test to differentiate S3P and GCP from S2P and GBP, but this requires further investigation.

    “Given that the summation of Se and Sp for oPMN levels was <1.5, 45 our results suggest that an oPMN level >1.43 × 106/mL is a potentially useful test to differentiate S3P and GCP from S2P and GBP; however, this requires further investigation.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Power, M., Fell, G., & Wright, M.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Airedale NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Power, Michael
Venue
Evidence Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-06-27
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
5-10
ISSN
  • 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-6810
OpenAlex
W2051681038
Cited by
394
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
overuse of diagnostic testing, high-value care, evidence-based practice, test performance, overdiagnosis, patient-centered care, cognitive biases, medical training, NHS doctors, diagnostic imaging
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Quality of Health Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Evidence-Based Medicine, Uncertainty

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