Search

Investigations such as blood tests and radiography are important tools for the making correct diagnoses. The use of diagnostic resources is growing steadily—in the Netherlands, for example, nationwide expenditure on diagnostic tests is growing at the rate of 7% a year. Unfortunately, health status is not improving similarly, which suggests that investigations are being overused. The ordering of tests seems not to be influenced by the fact that their diagnostic accuracy is often disappointing. Considerations other than strict scientific indications seem to be involved, and we may ask whether new knowledge and research findings are adequately reflected in daily practice. Several factors may be responsible for the increasing use of investigations, such as the increasing demand for care (due to ageing of the population and increasing numbers of chronically ill people); the fact that they are available, which in itself leads to ordering; and the urge to make use of new technology. Once an abnormal test result is found, doctors may order further investigations, not realising that on average 5% of test results are outside their reference ranges, and a cascade of testing may result. Furthermore, higher standards of care, the guidelines for which often recommend additional testing, and defensive behaviour have led to more investigations. Unfortunately, when guidelines on selective and rational ordering of investigations are introduced, numerous motives for ignoring evidence based recommendations, such as fear of litigation, or procrastination on the part of the doctor, come into play in daily practice and are difficult to influence. Overuse of investigations—and there is reason to believe that some requests are illogical—leads to overloading of the diagnostic services and overexpenditure: more efficient usage is therefore needed. Interventions focusing on overt examples of inappropriate testing might reduce costs while simultaneously improving quality of care. #### Summary points Intervention is needed to reduce the often …

STUDY OBJECTIVE--To compare three days9 and seven days9 treatment with co-trimoxazole in women with acute dysuria, strangury, and urinary frequency or urgency. DESIGN--Randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. SETTING--General practices in the south east of The Netherlands. PATIENTS--327 Non-pregnant female patients aged 12 to 65. INTERVENTION--161 Women were allocated to three days9 treatment (co-trimoxazole 960 mg twice a day), and 166 women were allocated to seven days9 treatment (co-trimoxazole 960 mg twice a day). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Resolution of symptoms at one, two, and six weeks. RESULTS--The rates for resolution of symptoms were not significantly different between the two groups. Cumulative rates of recurrence after three days9 and seven days9 treatment were 31/139 (22%) and 23/151 (15%) respectively six weeks after entry (p = 0.16). Adverse effects occurred in a quarter of women given three days9 treatment compared with a third of women receiving seven days9 treatment (p = 0.29). In only two patients did adverse effects necessitate stopping treatment. CONCLUSIONS--Three days of co-trimoxazole seems to be as effective as a seven days9 course for treating acute urinary tract infection in non-pregnant women.