Search

Introduction Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of a disease that would never have caused any symptom or problem. It is a harmful side effect of screening and may lead to unnecessary treatment, costs and emotional drawbacks. Doctors and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) have the opportunity to mitigate these consequences, not only by informing their patients or the public but also by adjusting screening methods or even by refraining from screening. However, it is unclear to what extent HCPs are fully aware of overdiagnosis and whether it affects their screening decisions. With this systematic review, we aim to synthesise all available research about what HCPs know and think about overdiagnosis, how it affects their position on screening policy and whether they think patients and the public should be informed about it.Methods and analysis We will systematically search several databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycArticles) for studies that directly examine HCPs' knowledge and subjective perceptions of overdiagnosis due to health screening, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We will optimise our search by scanning reference and citation lists, contacting experts in the field and hand searching abstracts from the annual conference on 'Preventing Overdiagnosis'. After selection and quality appraisal, we will analyse qualitative and quantitative findings separately in a segregated design for mixed-method reviews. The data will be examined and presented descriptively. If the retrieved studies allow it, we will review them from a constructivist perspective through a critical interpretive synthesis.Ethics and dissemination For this type of research, no ethical approval is required. Findings from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at the annual congress of 'Preventing Overdiagnosis'. In addition, the results will serve as guidance for further research on this topic.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021244513.

Objective To estimate the rate and type of downstream activities (DAs) after laboratory testing in primary care, with a specific focus on check-up laboratory panels, and to explore the effect of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for laboratory ordering on these DAs.Design Cluster randomised clinical trial.Setting 72 primary care practices in Belgium, with 272 general practitioners (GPs), randomly assigned to the intervention arm or the control arm.Participants The study included 10 270 lab panels from 9683 primary care patients (women 55.1%, mean age 56.5). All adult patients who consulted one of the participating GPs during the trial period and needed a laboratory exam were eligible for participation.Interventions GPs in the intervention group used a CDSS integrated into their online laboratory ordering system, while GPs in the control arm used their lab ordering system as usual. The trial duration was 6 months, with another 6 months follow-up.Main outcome measures This publication reports on the exploratory outcome of DAs after an initial laboratory exam and the effect of the CDSS on these DAs.Results 19.7% of all laboratory panels resulted in further diagnostic procedures (95% CI 18.9% to 20.5%) and 19% (95% CI 18.2% to 19.7%) in treatment changes. Check-up laboratory exams showed similar rates of DAs, with 17.5% (95% CI 13.8% to 21.2%) diagnostic DAs and 18.9% (95% CI 13.9% to 23.9%) treatment changes. Using the CDSS resulted in a significant reduction in downstream referrals (−2.4%; 95% CI −4.2% to −0.6%; p=0008), imaging and endoscopies (−0.9%; 95% CI −1.6% to −0.1%; p=0026) and treatment changes (−5.4%; 95% CI −9.5% to −1.2%; p=0.01).Conclusion This is the largest study so far to examine DAs after laboratory testing. It shows that almost one in three laboratory exams leads to further DAs, even in check-up panels. Using a CDSS for laboratory orders may reduce the rate of some DAs.Trial registration number NCT02950142.

Abstract Background Inappropriate laboratory test ordering poses an important burden for healthcare. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been cited as promising tools to improve laboratory test ordering behavior. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of an intervention that integrated a clinical decision support service into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the appropriateness and volume of laboratory test ordering, and on diagnostic error in primary care. Methods This study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial. Setting Two hundred eighty general practitioners (GPs) from 72 primary care practices in Belgium. Patients Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a laboratory test order for at least one of 17 indications: cardiovascular disease management, hypertension, check-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatigue, anemia, liver disease, gout, suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspicion of lung embolism, rheumatoid arthritis, sexually transmitted infections (STI), acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, and follow-up of medication. Interventions The CDSS was integrated into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in the form of evidence-based order sets that suggested appropriate tests based on the indication provided by the general physician. Measurements The primary outcome of the ELMO study was the proportion of appropriate tests over the total number of ordered tests and inappropriately not-requested tests. Secondary outcomes of the ELMO study included diagnostic error, test volume, and cascade activities. Results CDSS increased the proportion of appropriate tests by 0.21 (95% CI 0.16–0.26, p < 0.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37–10.93, p = 0.0002)) tests fewer per panel. CDSS did not increase diagnostic error. The absolute difference in proportions was a decrease of 0.66% (95% CI 1.4% decrease–0.05% increase) in possible diagnostic error. Conclusions A CDSS in the form of order sets, integrated within the CPOE improved appropriateness and decreased volume of laboratory test ordering without increasing diagnostic error. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950142 , registered on October 25, 2016