This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (76)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Pathology & Laboratory Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Systematic Review of Laboratory Clinical Audits

Carl van Walraven, MD, MSc, FRCPC; C. David Naylor, MD, DPhil, FRCPC

JAMA. 1998;280:550-558.

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.

From the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, North York, Ontario (Drs van Walraven and Naylor), and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario (Dr Naylor).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

The Need for an Outcomes Research Agenda for Clinical Laboratory Testing
George D. Lundberg
JAMA. 1998;280(6):565-566.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Clinical audit in the laboratory
Erasmus and Zemlin
J. Clin. Pathol. 2009;62:593-597.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Health outcomes following liver function testing in primary care: a retrospective cohort study
McLernon et al.
Fam Pract 2009;0:cmp025v1-cmp025.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Pathology Differences in Laboratory Utilization in Hospice and Nonhospice Units
Barbosa et al.
AM J HOSP PALLIAT CARE 2009;26:79-83.
ABSTRACT  

Effect of Provider Continuity on Test Repetition
van Walraven et al.
Clin. Chem. 2006;52:2219-2228.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Factors contributing to inappropriate ordering of tests in an academic medical department and the effect of an educational feedback strategy
Miyakis et al.
Postgrad. Med. J. 2006;82:823-829.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Unnecessary repeat requesting of tests: an audit in a government hospital immunology laboratory
Kwok and Jones
J. Clin. Pathol. 2005;58:457-462.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Methodology for constructing guidance
Smellie et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2005;58:249-253.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Population-based Study of Repeat Laboratory Testing
van Walraven and Raymond
Clin. Chem. 2003;49:1997-2005.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Rational, cost effective use of investigations
Bulusu et al.
BMJ 2002;325:222-222.
FULL TEXT  

Errors in Laboratory Medicine
Bonini et al.
Clin. Chem. 2002;48:691-698.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study
Steurer et al.
BMJ 2002;324:824-826.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Compliance of General Practitioners with a Guideline-based Decision Support System for Ordering Blood Tests
van Wijk et al.
Clin. Chem. 2002;48:55-60.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quality improvement report: A laboratory based intervention to improve appropriateness of lipid tests and audit cholesterol lowering in primary care
Smellie et al.
BMJ 2001;323:1224-1227.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Overview of Evidence-based Medicine: Challenges for Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine
McQueen
Clin. Chem. 2001;47:1536-1546.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence based diagnostic microbiology: has its time come?
Sintchenko and Gilbert
J. Clin. Pathol. 2001;54:441-442.
FULL TEXT  

Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine: Supporting Decision-Making
Price
Clin. Chem. 2000;46:1041-1050.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Informationist: A New Health Profession?
Davidoff and Florance
ANN INTERN MED 2000;132:996-998.
FULL TEXT  

Benchmarking general practice use of pathology services: a model for monitoring change
Smellie et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2000;53:476-480.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Influence of an Expert System for Test Ordering and Interpretation on Laboratory Investigations
Smith and McNeely
Clin. Chem. 1999;45:1168-1175.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Analysis of the Practice Guidelines of the Dutch College of General Practitioners with Respect to the Use of Blood Tests
VAN Wijk et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 1999;6:322-331.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Population-Based Interventions on Laboratory Utilization: A Time-Series Analysis
van Walraven et al.
JAMA 1998;280:2028-2033.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Need for an Outcomes Research Agenda for Clinical Laboratory Testing
Lundberg
JAMA 1998;280:565-566.
FULL TEXT