MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Anemia Workup in Current Clinical Practice: Results From a Survey of Primary Care Physicians

2011· article· en· W2563647285 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory A. Abel, Christopher R. Friese, Bridget A. Neville, B. Taylor Hastings, Craig C. Earle, Lisa C. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematological disorders and diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnemiaReferralFamily medicineLogistic regressionPediatricsPrimary careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2084 BACKGROUND: Although the primary care physician (PCP) is often the first provider to diagnose anemia, little is known about the anemia workup in current clinical practice. Knowledge of current practices can inform efforts to improve anemia management in older adults, which has been recognized as a public health crisis by a combined ASH/National Institute of Aging blue ribbon panel. METHODS: From April to August 2010, we administered a 34-item questionnaire to a random sample of 190 Massachusetts physicians identified as PCPs (family practice, general practice, or internal medicine) in the American Medical Association's physician file. PCPs were given a vignette about a hypothetical patient asking “If you were to see a previously healthy patient during a routine physical with mild anemia (Hg 80% of normal) and no other symptoms, which of the following would you do?” PCPs were given 13 choices, but could also write in answers. In the next section, they were told “The patient with mild anemia presents two weeks later. The anemia is unchanged, but the patient has one new sign/symptom in the following list. For each of these as an isolated new finding, what would you do next?” and asked which of 11 signs/symptoms would prompt (1) imaging (2) referral to a hematologist (3) further follow-up. More than one choice was allowed. Results were analyzed descriptively, and significant differences in the second workup stage were identified using Wald chi-square statistics obtained from logistic regression models controlling for correlations of individual PCP responses. RESULTS: 134 PCPs responded (70.5%). 62.4% identified as internists; 58.7% were male. PCPs were evenly distributed with respect to level of academic affiliation. The median reported patient panel size during the prior 12 months was 1800; median percentage of patients ≥ 65 years was 30.0%; median percentage of patients in managed care 55.0%; and median year of graduation from residency, 1996. For the first stage of the workup, most PCPs reported they would send iron studies (93.2%), a differential (85.7%), and B12/folate (85.0%). Fewer would obtain a stool guaiac (69.2%), reticulocyte count (66.2%), or a serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP; 17.3%). At this first stage, 30.8% reported they would require a 2-week follow-up visit, 26.3% a colonoscopy, and 8.3% an EGD. Almost none would refer to a hematologist (3.8%) or obtain imaging (1.5%), and 12.0% wrote in “work-up depends on patient's age.” Reported subsequent actions with persistent anemia and one new sign or symptom were as follows: Among those patients mostly likely to be referred to a hematologist (those with pancytopenia, thrombocytopenia and leukopenia), PCPs reported recommending low levels of 2-week follow-up in addition to the referral (10.6%, 16.7% and 15.6% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the reticulocyte count, stool guaiac and SPEP were less frequent than might be expected in the first steps of the anemia work-up; in contrast, more than one-quarter of PCPs reported they would obtain a relatively expensive procedure (colonoscopy) as a first step. Signs and symptoms suggesting bone marrow failure most often prompted referral to a hematologist, while those suggesting lymphoma were generally followed by imaging. Interestingly, an insistent family member could influence hematology referral in the setting of persistent anemia, even more so than night sweats, leukocytosis, or weight loss. These data suggest that several lower-cost diagnostic tools may be underutilized in the PCP's anemia workup, that the workup varies with associated clinical factors, and that patients and families influence the ultimate decision to refer to a hematologist. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHematological disorders and diagnosticsFrench-language works237,207