The effectiveness of a routine versus an extensive laboratory analysis in the diagnosis of anaemia in general practice

Annemarie Schop (Corresponding Author), Michelle M.A. Kip, Karlijn Stouten, Soraya Dekker, Jurgen Riedl, Ron J. van Houten, Joost van Rosmalen, Geert Jan Dinant, Maarten J. IJzerman, Hendrik Koffijberg, Patrick J.E. Bindels, Ron Kusters, Mark-David Levin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: We investigated the percentage of patients diagnosed with the correct underlying cause of anaemia by general practitioners when using an extensive versus a routine laboratory work-up.

Methods: An online survey was distributed among 836 general practitioners. The survey consisted of six cases, selected from an existing cohort of anaemia patients (n = 3325). In three cases, general practitioners were asked to select the laboratory tests for further diagnostic examination from a list of 14 parameters (i.e. routine work-up). In the other three cases, general practitioners were presented with all 14 laboratory test results available (i.e. extensive work-up). General practitioners were asked to determine the underlying cause of anaemia in all six cases based on the test results, and these answers were compared with the answers of an expert panel.

Results: A total of 139 general practitioners (partly) responded to the survey (17%). The general practitioners were able to determine the underlying cause of anaemia in 53% of cases based on the routine work-up, whereas 62% of cases could be diagnosed using an extensive work-up (P = 0.007). In addition, the probability of a correct diagnosis decreased with the patient’s age and was also affected by the underlying cause itself, with anaemia of chronic disease being hardest to diagnose (P = 0.003).

Conclusion: The use of an extensive laboratory work-up in patients with newly diagnosed anaemia is expected to increase the percentage of correct underlying causes established by general practitioners. Since the underlying cause can still not be established in 31.3% of anaemia patients, further research is necessary.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)535-542
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of Clinical Biochemistry
Volume55
Issue number5
Early online date3 Dec 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

General Practice
General Practitioners
Anemia
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Chronic Disease
Research
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Anaemia
  • Laboratory work-up
  • Routine
  • Extensive
  • Effectiveness

Cite this

Schop, Annemarie ; Kip, Michelle M.A. ; Stouten, Karlijn ; Dekker, Soraya ; Riedl, Jurgen ; van Houten, Ron J. ; van Rosmalen, Joost ; Dinant, Geert Jan ; IJzerman, Maarten J. ; Koffijberg, Hendrik ; Bindels, Patrick J.E. ; Kusters, Ron ; Levin, Mark-David. / The effectiveness of a routine versus an extensive laboratory analysis in the diagnosis of anaemia in general practice. In: Annals of Clinical Biochemistry. 2018 ; Vol. 55, No. 5. pp. 535-542.
@article{b04ca35c6b124106925d19f75a2f6b6a,
title = "The effectiveness of a routine versus an extensive laboratory analysis in the diagnosis of anaemia in general practice",
abstract = "Background: We investigated the percentage of patients diagnosed with the correct underlying cause of anaemia by general practitioners when using an extensive versus a routine laboratory work-up.Methods: An online survey was distributed among 836 general practitioners. The survey consisted of six cases, selected from an existing cohort of anaemia patients (n = 3325). In three cases, general practitioners were asked to select the laboratory tests for further diagnostic examination from a list of 14 parameters (i.e. routine work-up). In the other three cases, general practitioners were presented with all 14 laboratory test results available (i.e. extensive work-up). General practitioners were asked to determine the underlying cause of anaemia in all six cases based on the test results, and these answers were compared with the answers of an expert panel.Results: A total of 139 general practitioners (partly) responded to the survey (17{\%}). The general practitioners were able to determine the underlying cause of anaemia in 53{\%} of cases based on the routine work-up, whereas 62{\%} of cases could be diagnosed using an extensive work-up (P = 0.007). In addition, the probability of a correct diagnosis decreased with the patient’s age and was also affected by the underlying cause itself, with anaemia of chronic disease being hardest to diagnose (P = 0.003).Conclusion: The use of an extensive laboratory work-up in patients with newly diagnosed anaemia is expected to increase the percentage of correct underlying causes established by general practitioners. Since the underlying cause can still not be established in 31.3{\%} of anaemia patients, further research is necessary.",
keywords = "Anaemia, Laboratory work-up, Routine, Extensive, Effectiveness",
author = "Annemarie Schop and Kip, {Michelle M.A.} and Karlijn Stouten and Soraya Dekker and Jurgen Riedl and {van Houten}, {Ron J.} and {van Rosmalen}, Joost and Dinant, {Geert Jan} and IJzerman, {Maarten J.} and Hendrik Koffijberg and Bindels, {Patrick J.E.} and Ron Kusters and Mark-David Levin",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0004563217748680",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "535--542",
journal = "Annals of Clinical Biochemistry",
issn = "0004-5632",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "5",

}

The effectiveness of a routine versus an extensive laboratory analysis in the diagnosis of anaemia in general practice. / Schop, Annemarie (Corresponding Author); Kip, Michelle M.A.; Stouten, Karlijn; Dekker, Soraya; Riedl, Jurgen; van Houten, Ron J.; van Rosmalen, Joost; Dinant, Geert Jan; IJzerman, Maarten J.; Koffijberg, Hendrik; Bindels, Patrick J.E.; Kusters, Ron; Levin, Mark-David.

In: Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, Vol. 55, No. 5, 01.09.2018, p. 535-542.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of a routine versus an extensive laboratory analysis in the diagnosis of anaemia in general practice

AU - Schop, Annemarie

AU - Kip, Michelle M.A.

AU - Stouten, Karlijn

AU - Dekker, Soraya

AU - Riedl, Jurgen

AU - van Houten, Ron J.

AU - van Rosmalen, Joost

AU - Dinant, Geert Jan

AU - IJzerman, Maarten J.

AU - Koffijberg, Hendrik

AU - Bindels, Patrick J.E.

AU - Kusters, Ron

AU - Levin, Mark-David

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - Background: We investigated the percentage of patients diagnosed with the correct underlying cause of anaemia by general practitioners when using an extensive versus a routine laboratory work-up.Methods: An online survey was distributed among 836 general practitioners. The survey consisted of six cases, selected from an existing cohort of anaemia patients (n = 3325). In three cases, general practitioners were asked to select the laboratory tests for further diagnostic examination from a list of 14 parameters (i.e. routine work-up). In the other three cases, general practitioners were presented with all 14 laboratory test results available (i.e. extensive work-up). General practitioners were asked to determine the underlying cause of anaemia in all six cases based on the test results, and these answers were compared with the answers of an expert panel.Results: A total of 139 general practitioners (partly) responded to the survey (17%). The general practitioners were able to determine the underlying cause of anaemia in 53% of cases based on the routine work-up, whereas 62% of cases could be diagnosed using an extensive work-up (P = 0.007). In addition, the probability of a correct diagnosis decreased with the patient’s age and was also affected by the underlying cause itself, with anaemia of chronic disease being hardest to diagnose (P = 0.003).Conclusion: The use of an extensive laboratory work-up in patients with newly diagnosed anaemia is expected to increase the percentage of correct underlying causes established by general practitioners. Since the underlying cause can still not be established in 31.3% of anaemia patients, further research is necessary.

AB - Background: We investigated the percentage of patients diagnosed with the correct underlying cause of anaemia by general practitioners when using an extensive versus a routine laboratory work-up.Methods: An online survey was distributed among 836 general practitioners. The survey consisted of six cases, selected from an existing cohort of anaemia patients (n = 3325). In three cases, general practitioners were asked to select the laboratory tests for further diagnostic examination from a list of 14 parameters (i.e. routine work-up). In the other three cases, general practitioners were presented with all 14 laboratory test results available (i.e. extensive work-up). General practitioners were asked to determine the underlying cause of anaemia in all six cases based on the test results, and these answers were compared with the answers of an expert panel.Results: A total of 139 general practitioners (partly) responded to the survey (17%). The general practitioners were able to determine the underlying cause of anaemia in 53% of cases based on the routine work-up, whereas 62% of cases could be diagnosed using an extensive work-up (P = 0.007). In addition, the probability of a correct diagnosis decreased with the patient’s age and was also affected by the underlying cause itself, with anaemia of chronic disease being hardest to diagnose (P = 0.003).Conclusion: The use of an extensive laboratory work-up in patients with newly diagnosed anaemia is expected to increase the percentage of correct underlying causes established by general practitioners. Since the underlying cause can still not be established in 31.3% of anaemia patients, further research is necessary.

KW - Anaemia

KW - Laboratory work-up

KW - Routine

KW - Extensive

KW - Effectiveness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052060871&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0004563217748680

DO - 10.1177/0004563217748680

M3 - Article

VL - 55

SP - 535

EP - 542

JO - Annals of Clinical Biochemistry

JF - Annals of Clinical Biochemistry

SN - 0004-5632

IS - 5

ER -