Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 204

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Computerized Display of Past Test Results: Effect on Outpatient Testing

TIERNEY, WILLIAM M., McDONALD, CLEMENT J., MARTIN, DOUGLAS K., HUI, SIU L., ROGERS, MICHAEL P.·1987·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of displaying previous results of diagnostic tests on the ordering of selected outpatient tests. DESIGN: Sixteen-week controlled trial with a 13-week pre-intervention and 8-week post-intervention observation periods. Patients were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups so that each physician was his or her own control. Only scheduled visits were included. Randomization occurred before the pre-intervention observation period. SETTING: Academic primary care general medicine clinic affiliated with an urban general hospital. SUBJECTS: Pre-intervention period: 111 physicians (97 internal medicine residents, 14 faculty internists), 4683 patients, 5942 scheduled visits. INTERVENTION period: same 111 physicians, 5946 patients, 8148 visits. Post-intervention period: 76 physicians (62 residents, 14 faculty), 2571 patients, 2858 scheduled visits. INTERVENTION: With an order for one of eight selected diagnostic tests through microcomputer workstations, a window was opened on the screen and previous test results were displayed along with the time interval between the first and last result. Tests were ordered for control patients into the same workstations without previous results displayed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Previous results of one or more study tests were available for display for 96% of scheduled patients. Significantly lower results (p less than 0.05 by paired t-test) for the selected tests were found for intervention patient visits than for control visits: charges per visit (mean +/- SE) for intervention patients $12.17 +/- 0.62, compared with $13.99 +/- 0.77 for controls, a 13.0% difference; tests per visit were 0.51 +/- 0.03, compared with 0.56 +/- 0.03, an 8.5% difference. The number of study tests ordered decreased significantly for intervention patients (16.8%) and for controls (10.9%). During the post-intervention period, ordering of study tests increased for both groups, but the increase from the intervention period was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting physicians with previous test results reduced the ordering of those tests. The actual effect may have been greater than 13%, because there were reductions in study tests ordered for both intervention and control patients during the intervention period when compared with the pre-intervention period, and both tended to rise after the intervention, or display, was turned off.

Overview

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-107-4-569

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. DRINKWATER B, 1967, Aerosp Med., 38, 164
  2. 1986, Aviation Week and Space Technology., 79
  3. 10.1097/00005650-197410000-00006 · DOI
  4. 10.1001/jama.1985.03360090075024 · DOI
  5. 10.2105/AJPH.72.7.698 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/BF00995118 · DOI
  7. 10.2105/AJPH.67.3.240 · DOI
  8. 10.1056/NEJM197912273012603 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1001/jama.1967.03130120046011 · doi:10.1001/jama.1967.03130120046011
  10. 10.1001/archinte.1974.00320240098012 · DOI
  11. 10.1056/NEJM197604222941705 · DOI
  12. 10.1001/jama.1984.03350020033021 · doi:10.1001/jama.1984.03350020033021
  13. RHYNE R, 1979, J Fam Pract., 8, 1003
  14. 10.1056/NEJM198012043032304 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1001/jama.1984.03350020027020 · DOI
  16. 10.1007/BF02596318 · DOI
  17. 10.1001/jama.1973.03220360029007 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.7326/0003-4819-90-2-243 · DOI
  19. 10.1001/jama.1983.03330460058036 · doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330460058036
  20. 10.1177/0272989X8600600208 · doi:10.1177/0272989x8600600208
  21. 10.2105/AJPH.72.1.16 · DOI
  22. EISENBERG J, 1977, J Med Educ., 52, 578
  23. 10.1097/00005650-198406000-00004 · doi:10.1097/00005650-198406000-00004
  24. 10.1001/jama.1984.03340250041018 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1001/jama.1981.03320190053032 · doi:10.1001/jama.1981.03320190053032
  26. 10.1177/0272989X8600600103 · DOI
  27. 10.7326/0003-4819-100-1-130 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1097/00005650-197811000-00007 · DOI · Paper page
  29. HULSE R, 1974, Am J Hosp Pharm., 33, 1061
  30. 10.7326/0003-4819-103-6-928 · DOI
  31. DORENFEST S, 1985, Modern Health Care., 92
  32. 10.1056/NEJM198503213121205 · DOI

Cited by

See all 204

Metadata

Authors
TIERNEY, W. M., McDONALD, C. J., MARTIN, D. K., HUI, S. L., & ROGERS, M. P.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1987-10-01
Volume
107
Issue
4
Pages
569-574
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2055718446
Cited by
204
References
0
FWCI
15.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/text-and-data-mining (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computerized Display of Past Test Results: Effect on Outpatient Testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-107-4-569
The paper
TIERNEY, W. M., McDONALD, C. J., MARTIN, D. K., HUI, S. L., & ROGERS, M. P. (1987). Computerized Display of Past Test Results: Effect on Outpatient Testing. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-107-4-569

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.