Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Test for Homogeneity01:23

Test for Homogeneity

The goodness–of–fit test can be used to decide whether a population fits a given distribution, but it will not suffice to decide whether two populations follow the same unknown distribution. A different test, called the test for homogeneity, can be used to conclude whether two populations have the same distribution. To calculate the test statistic for a test for homogeneity, follow the same procedure as with the test of independence. The hypotheses for the test for homogeneity can be stated as...
Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
Crossover Experiments01:16

Crossover Experiments

Crossover experiments, also called the repeated-measurements design, is a study design in which all experimental units are exposed to all treatments in different periods. Crossover experiments are generally used in psychology, the pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, and medicine.
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs01:20

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to subjects...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A digital quality measure for emergency presentation of pancreatic cancer.

British journal of cancer·2026
Same author

"My confidence in the diagnosis is low, but I am confident in what needs to happen for the patient": a mixed-methods study exploring diagnostic confidence and its impact on physician well-being.

Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany)·2026
Same author

Frequent Missed Opportunities for Earlier Diagnosis of Advanced-Stage Colorectal or Lung Cancer.

JAMA internal medicine·2025
Same author

Revisions to the Safety Assurance Factors for Electronic Health Record Resilience (SAFER) Guides to update national recommendations for safe use of electronic health records.

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA·2025
Same author

Prevalence and Outcomes of Emergency Presentations of Colorectal Cancer in Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Digestive diseases and sciences·2024
Same author

Implementation of Electronic Triggers to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments.

JAMA internal medicine·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 10, 2026

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
06:28

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy

Published on: August 1, 2019

8.3K

A Virtual Breakthrough Series Collaborative for Missed Test Results: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Clinical

Lisa Zubkoff1,2, Andrew J Zimolzak3,4, Ashley N D Meyer3,4

  • 1Birmingham/Atlanta Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Birmingham VA Healthcare System, Birmingham, Alabama.

JAMA Network Open
|October 30, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

The Virtual Breakthrough Series (VBTS) did not improve follow-up rates for missed test results across all sites. However, this quality improvement collaborative showed potential benefits for healthcare facilities with initially low follow-up rates.

More Related Videos

A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program
04:24

A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program

Published on: April 19, 2019

11.5K
Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
08:33

Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research

Published on: January 5, 2024

1.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 10, 2026

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
06:28

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy

Published on: August 1, 2019

8.3K
A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program
04:24

A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program

Published on: April 19, 2019

11.5K
Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
08:33

Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research

Published on: January 5, 2024

1.1K

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Quality Improvement Science
  • Clinical Informatics

Background:

  • Missed test results are a significant issue in healthcare, leading to diagnostic and treatment delays.
  • Effective strategies are needed to improve the timely follow-up of critical diagnostic test results.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the impact of the Virtual Breakthrough Series (VBTS) quality improvement collaborative on follow-up rates for abnormal chest imaging (lung cancer) and laboratory findings (colorectal cancer).

Main Methods:

  • A stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial was conducted across 12 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers.
  • The VBTS intervention involved teams receiving instruction on reducing missed test results.
  • Follow-up rates were measured using validated electronic algorithms before and during the intervention phases.

Main Results:

  • No significant overall improvement in the percentage of abnormal test results followed up was observed across study phases.
  • The VBTS intervention demonstrated a significant increase in follow-up rates at the site with the lowest baseline performance (27.8% to 55.6%).

Conclusions:

  • The VBTS intervention did not lead to a statistically significant improvement in overall test result follow-up rates.
  • The collaborative approach may be beneficial for improving care at sites struggling with low baseline follow-up rates for critical test results.