Commentary

The testing we order should help, not hurt


 

References

Ordering and interpreting tests is at the heart of what we do as family physicians. Ordering tests judiciously and interpreting them accurately is not easy. The Choosing Wisely campaign1 has focused our attention on the need to think carefully before ordering tests, whether they be laboratory tests or imaging. Before ordering any test, one should always ask: Is the result of this test going to help me make better decisions about managing this patient?

I would like to highlight and expand on 2 problematic issues Kaminski and Venkat raise in their excellent article on testing in this issue of JFP.2

One should always ask: Is the result of this test going to help me make better decisions?

First, they advise us to know the pretest probability of a disease before we order a test. If we order a test on a patient for whom the probability of disease is very low, a positive result is likely to be a false-positive and mislead us into thinking the patient has the disease when he does not. If we order a test for a patient with a high probability of disease and the result is negative, there is great danger of a false-­negative. We might think the patient does not have the disease, but she does.

There is a deeper problem here, however. Primary care physicians are notorious for overestimating disease probability. In a recent study, primary care clinicians overestimated the pretest probability of disease 2- to 10-fold in scenarios involving 4 common diagnoses: breast cancer, coronary artery disease (CAD), pneumonia, and urinary tract infection.3 Even after receiving a negative test result, clinicians still overestimated the chance of disease in all the scenarios. For example, when presented with a 43-year-old premenopausal woman with atypical chest pain and a normal electrocardiogram, clinicians’ average estimate of the probability of CAD was 10%—considerably higher than true estimates of 1% to 4.4%.3

To improve your accuracy in judging pretest probabilities, see the diagnostic test calculators in Essential Evidence Plus (www.essentialevidenceplus.com/).

Secondly, Kaminski and Venkat advise us to try to avoid the testing cascade.2 The associated dangers to patients are considerable. For a cautionary tale, I recommend you read the essay by Michael B. Rothberg, MD, MPH, called “The $50,000 Physical”.4 Dr. Rothberg describes the testing cascade his 85-year-old father experienced, which led to a liver biopsy that nearly killed him from post-biopsy bleeding. Always remember: Testing is a double-edged sword. It can help—or harm—your patients.

Recommended Reading

CDC recommends high-dose flu vaccines for seniors
MDedge Family Medicine
Adding salt to food linked to higher risk of premature death
MDedge Family Medicine
Three things to know about insurance coverage for abortion
MDedge Family Medicine
LGBTQ+ Youth Consult: Let’s talk about PrEP!
MDedge Family Medicine
Amazon involved with new cancer vaccine clinical trial
MDedge Family Medicine
Moderate drinking shows more benefit for older vs. younger adults
MDedge Family Medicine
Number of steps per day needed to prevent death in diabetes
MDedge Family Medicine
Colchicine may decrease cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease
MDedge Family Medicine
An avocado a day doesn’t shrink belly fat, but helps with cholesterol
MDedge Family Medicine
A judicious approach to ordering lab tests
MDedge Family Medicine