van Walraven C, Naylor C D
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, North York, Ontario, Canada.
JAMA. 1998 Aug 12;280(6):550-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.6.550.
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.
Systematic review of published studies.
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.
All studies that provided and applied criteria for inappropriate laboratory use.
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.
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.
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.
实验室检查的使用一直在稳步增加,一些研究表明存在不恰当使用的情况。因此,我们希望根据方法学标准评估那些测量实验室检查不恰当使用情况的研究。
对已发表研究进行系统评价。
使用广泛且无语言限制的检索策略,检索1966年至1997年9月期间的MEDLINE、HEALTHSTAR和EMBASE数据库。此外,还对所有检索到的研究的参考文献以及3本关于诊断检查的教科书进行了手工检索。
所有提供并应用了不恰当实验室检查使用标准的研究。
根据标准是隐含的(未提供不恰当使用的客观标准或标准非常宽泛)还是明确的,对研究进行分类。由一名评审员对每项研究应用评估指南。
共识别出44项符合条件的研究。11项研究使用了不恰当实验室使用的隐含标准,且纳入的患者或医生数量较少。大多数研究没有充分评估隐含标准的可靠性。33项研究使用了基于检查选择的适当性、频率、时机以及阳性结果概率的明确标准。不恰当实验室使用的估计值差异很大(4.5% - 95%)。按照治疗操作建议的标准,支持明确标准的证据往往较弱,但基于生理学、药理学和概率原则,这些证据仍然具有说服力。
许多研究根据不符合治疗操作审核建议的方法学标准的隐含或明确标准,识别出不恰当的实验室使用情况。研究人员应制定用于衡量实验室检查使用不恰当性的替代证据标准。