ArticleBMJ open2026
Diagnostic stewardship in emergency departments using the UNTIE framework: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPathology testing accounts for over half of non-labour costs in Australian Emergency Departments (EDs), yet up to one-fifth of tests are unnecessary. Despite national guidance from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA), variation in test ordering persists across departments and across clinical presentations. The Unnecessary Tests in Emergency (UNTIE) study aims to evaluate whether audit and feedback using a novel indicator can reduce unnecessary pathology testing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: UNTIE is a multicentre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial conducted across five metropolitan EDs in New South Wales, Australia. All adult ED presentations that fall within the 29 clinical conditions covered by the 2023 ACEM-RCPA guideline will be included. Presentations were identified using routinely collected ED triage diagnoses. Because the ACEM-RCPA pathology guideline specifies clinical presentations rather than diagnostic codes, a mapping process was developed to align triage terms used in the electronic medical record with the guideline categories. Approximately 100 common triage diagnoses were reviewed by a panel of emergency physicians and mapped to the 29 eligible presentations. This mapping dictionary was used to automatically classify all ED encounters during data extraction. Ambiguous or unmapped triage terms were reviewed and assigned by consensus.The intervention comprises a multifaceted audit-feedback programme-combining local champions, education sessions, visual prompts and electronic dashboards. Two automated indicators will be generated for every eligible ED encounter: UNTIE-U (Unnecessary Testing Index) representing the proportion of tests performed but not recommended and UNTIE-N (Necessary Testing Index) representing the proportion of guideline-recommended tests performed. The primary outcome is change in UNTIE-U before and after intervention; the secondary outcome is change in UNTIE-N. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/17/WMEAD/274, 2022/STE03249). All analyses will use de-identified data. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentation and feedback to participating EDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12623001130651, UTN: U1111-1297-0386.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.