Cited by 97Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Additional patient outcomes and pathways in evaluations of testing

Bossuyt, Patrick M. M., McCaffery, Kirsten·2009·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Before medical tests are introduced into practice, they should be properly evaluated. Randomized trials and other comprehensive evaluations of tests and test strategies can best be designed based on an understanding of how tests can benefit or harm patients. Tests primarily affect patients' health by guiding clinical decision making and downstream management, such as the decision to order more tests or to start, stop, or modify treatment. In this article, the authors demonstrate that tests can have additional effects on patient outcome, which may be cognitive, emotional, social, or behavioral. They present a framework to help researchers and policy makers consider the cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral effects of testing. These additional effects may be important themselves and may also influence the clinical outcomes of testing through different pathways. The authors provide examples from test evaluations in the literature to illustrate how these additional effects can be important in the evaluation of testing or indeed any health intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x09347013

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • False-positive results have direct and indirect downstream consequences and can result in a delay in obtaining the correct diagnosis and potentially inappropriate or no treatment.

    “Furthermore, false-positive results have direct and indirect downstream consequences (75) and can result in a delay in obtaining the correct diagnosis and potentially inappropriate or no treatment.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bossuyt, P. M. M., & McCaffery, K.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2009-09
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
E30-E38
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W2120635598
Cited by
97
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 17
FWCI
18.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
patient outcomes, cognitive effects, emotional impact, social consequences, behavioral effects, test evaluation, clinical decision-making, health interventions, evaluation framework
MeSH terms
Cognition, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Emotions, Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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