Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management
- PMID: 20158908
- PMCID: PMC2829524
- DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-11-13
Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management
Abstract
Background: Abnormal results of diagnostic laboratory tests can be difficult to interpret when disease probability is very low. Although most physicians generally do not use Bayesian calculations to interpret abnormal results, their estimates of pretest disease probability and reasons for ordering diagnostic tests may--in a more implicit manner--influence test interpretation and further management. A better understanding of this influence may help to improve test interpretation and management. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the influence of physicians' pretest disease probability estimates, and their reasons for ordering diagnostic tests, on test result interpretation, posttest probability estimates and further management.
Methods: Prospective study among 87 primary care physicians in the Netherlands who each ordered laboratory tests for 25 patients. They recorded their reasons for ordering the tests (to exclude or confirm disease or to reassure patients) and their pretest disease probability estimates. Upon receiving the results they recorded how they interpreted the tests, their posttest probability estimates and further management. Logistic regression was used to analyse whether the pretest probability and the reasons for ordering tests influenced the interpretation, the posttest probability estimates and the decisions on further management.
Results: The physicians ordered tests for diagnostic purposes for 1253 patients; 742 patients had an abnormal result (64%). Physicians' pretest probability estimates and their reasons for ordering diagnostic tests influenced test interpretation, posttest probability estimates and further management. Abnormal results of tests ordered for reasons of reassurance were significantly more likely to be interpreted as normal (65.8%) compared to tests ordered to confirm a diagnosis or exclude a disease (27.7% and 50.9%, respectively). The odds for abnormal results to be interpreted as normal were much lower when the physician estimated a high pretest disease probability, compared to a low pretest probability estimate (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.07-0.52, p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Interpretation and management of abnormal test results were strongly influenced by physicians' estimation of pretest disease probability and by the reason for ordering the test. By relating abnormal laboratory results to their pretest expectations, physicians may seek a balance between over- and under-reacting to laboratory test results.
Similar articles
-
Reasons for ordering laboratory tests and relationship with frequency of abnormal results.Scand J Prim Health Care. 2010 Mar;28(1):18-23. doi: 10.3109/02813430903281758. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2010. PMID: 20121652 Free PMC article.
-
Cascade effects of laboratory testing are found to be rare in low disease probability situations: prospective cohort study.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Apr;63(4):452-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.004. Epub 2009 Oct 31. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 19880283
-
Diagnostic and laboratory test ordering in Northern Portuguese Primary Health Care: a cross-sectional study.BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 15;7(11):e018509. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018509. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 29146654 Free PMC article.
-
Influencing behavior of physicians ordering laboratory tests: a literature study.Med Care. 1993 Sep;31(9):784-94. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199309000-00003. Med Care. 1993. PMID: 8366680 Review.
-
A Primer on Rheumatologic Laboratory Tests: What They Mean and When to Order Them.Prim Care. 2018 Jun;45(2):181-191. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2018.02.002. Prim Care. 2018. PMID: 29759119 Review.
Cited by
-
Determinants of Attitude toward the Public Health Spending and Its Relationship with Voting Behavior in the 2012 South Korean Presidential Election.PLoS One. 2016 Oct 6;11(10):e0163763. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163763. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27711213 Free PMC article.
-
Prostate specific antigen testing policy worldwide varies greatly and seems not to be in accordance with guidelines: a systematic review.BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Oct 11;13:100. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-100. BMC Fam Pract. 2012. PMID: 23052017 Free PMC article.
-
Downstream activities after laboratory testing in primary care: an exploratory outcome of the ELMO cluster randomised trial (Electronic Laboratory Medicine Ordering with evidence-based order sets in primary care).BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 4;12(4):e059261. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059261. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 35379642 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Correlation between clinicians-assigned weights to findings and their diagnostic odd ratio; case of congestive heart failure.J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2016 Sep 23;15:39. doi: 10.1186/s40200-016-0262-6. eCollection 2015. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2016. PMID: 27689063 Free PMC article.
-
The Impact and Wider Implications of Remote Consultations for General Practice in Norway: Qualitative Study Among Norwegian Contract General Practitioners.JMIR Form Res. 2024 Dec 17;8:e63068. doi: 10.2196/63068. JMIR Form Res. 2024. PMID: 39688890 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Phillips WR, Thompson DJ. Multi-channel laboratory testing and the unexpected abnormal result: a statistical myth corrected. N Z Med J. 1981;94(698):462–464. - PubMed
-
- Mold JW, Aspy CB, Lawler FH. Outcomes of an insurance company-sponsored multichannel chemistry screening initiative. J Fam Pract. 1998;47(2):110–117. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical