ArticleThe European journal of general practice2026
Potential and pitfalls of personal reference intervals in general practice: A focus group and case vignette study among Dutch general practitioners.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonalised medicine is increasingly used in clinical practice and tailors care to individual characteristics. A new application in laboratory diagnostics is personalised reference intervals (PeRIs). Unlike population-based reference intervals (PoRIs), PeRIs use previous results of the patient, providing ranges tailored to an individual's own baseline. This may improve interpretation of laboratory results and possibly patient care.
objectivesThis study aims to explore perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on PeRIs, and maps the identified benefits, disadvantages, risks and prerequisites before implementation of PeRIs.
methodsFocus groups (
resultsFocus groups and the survey identified benefits, including easier interpretation, efficiency and more meaningful follow-up and referrals, as well as risks such as alert fatigue, overreliance, and underdiagnosis. The survey showed that PeRIs may alter GP behaviour. When a haemoglobin result was presented with versus without a PeRI comment, a significant portion of GPs adjusted their clinical strategy in these fictional cases. Participants emphasised that PeRIs should support, not replace clinical judgement.
conclusionOur study reveals arguments both supporting and opposing PeRIs. Importantly, GPs perceived added value for diagnostic decision-making. We advise accompanying implementation of PeRI with education on responsibilities and underlying algorithms. In this way, PeRIs can contribute to behavioural change that may lead to better and more meaningful, personalised care.
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.