Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33148242›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2020

Why clinicians overtest: development of a thematic framework.

Justin H Lam, Kristen Pickles, Fiona F Stanaway, Katy J L Bell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Trends in syncope testing and admissions in the USA from 2006 through 2019.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. GPs' perspectives on diagnostic testing in children with persistent non-specific symptoms: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Justin H LamFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building, A27 Fisher Rd, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2066, Australia. j_lam93@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6076-3999
Kristen PicklesFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building, A27 Fisher Rd, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2066, Australia.
Fiona F StanawayFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building, A27 Fisher Rd, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2066, Australia.
Katy J L BellFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building, A27 Fisher Rd, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2066, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical tests provide important information to guide clinical management. Overtesting, however, may cause harm to patients and the healthcare system, including through misdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives and overdiagnosis. Clinicians are ultimately responsible for test requests, and are therefore ideally positioned to prevent overtesting and its unintended consequences. Through this narrative literature review and workshop discussion with experts at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference (Sydney, 2019), we aimed to identify and establish a thematic framework of factors that influence clinicians to request non-recommended and unnecessary tests.

methodsArticles exploring factors affecting clinician test ordering behaviour were identified through a systematic search of MedLine in April 2019, forward and backward citation searches and content experts. Two authors screened abstract titles and abstracts, and two authors screened full text for inclusion. Identified factors were categorised into a preliminary framework which was subsequently presented at the PODC for iterative development.

resultsThe MedLine search yielded 542 articles; 55 were included. Another 10 articles identified by forward-backward citation and content experts were included, resulting in 65 articles in total. Following small group discussion with workshop participants, a revised thematic framework of factors was developed: "Intrapersonal" - fear of malpractice and litigation; clinician knowledge and understanding; intolerance of uncertainty and risk aversion; cognitive biases and experiences; sense of medical obligation "Interpersonal" - pressure from patients and doctor-patient relationship; pressure from colleagues and medical culture; "Environment/context" - guidelines, protocols and policies; financial incentives and ownership of tests; time constraints, physical vulnerabilities and language barriers; availability and ease of access to tests; pre-emptive testing to facilitate subsequent care; contemporary medical practice and new technology

conclusionThis thematic framework may raise awareness of overtesting and prompt clinicians to change their test request behaviour. The development of a scale to assess clinician knowledge, attitudes and practices is planned to allow evaluation of clinician-targeted interventions to reduce overtesting.

Indexed as

AttitudePhysician-Patient RelationsHumansClinicianHealth service misuseMedical overuseOvertestOvertesting

Identifiers

PMID33148242
PMCPMC7643462

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.