NOTE: To view the article with Web enhancements, go to:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/552964
Field Notes in Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine
Unnecessary Testing in Obstetrics, Gynecology, and General
Medicine: Causes and Consequences of the Unwarranted Use
of Costly and Unscientific (Yet Profitable) Screening
Modalities
Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP
Medscape Ob/Gyn & Women's Health. 2007; ©2007 Medscape
Posted 04/30/2007
Overview
Unnecessary testing is becoming increasing common in medical practice and consumer demand
for certain types of tests have escalated. Such testing is expensive, diverts patient and provider
time and attention from addressing evidence-based screening, can provide unwarranted
reassurance or cause unnecessary anxiety, and can lead to further interventions that may carry
risks of physical harm and even death. This column will provide an overview of unnecessary
testing, using examples from obstetrics, gynecology, and general medicine.
There is a large body of evidence-based literature describing the extent, reasons for, and
consequences of inappropriate use of laboratory tests, especially in the hospital setting. However,
this column will focus primarily on more expensive screening tests, such as full-body scans,
which are often marketed directly to unwitting consumers.
Evidence-based Screening
Space limitation precludes a thorough discussion of an evidence-based approach to screening
tests, but this section provides a brief overview of criteria for appropriate screening. Tests to
screen for disease in the pre-symptomatic stages should meet certain criteria before being
recommended. These criteria include [1,2]:

The disease being screened for must be reasonably common and have a significant
effect on either duration or quality of life;

Acceptable, effective treatment must exist, and the condition must have an asymptomatic
period during which detection and treatment can improve outcome;

Treatment during the asymptomatic period must be superior to treatment once symptoms
occur; and

The screening test must be safe, affordable, and have adequate sensitivity (ie, the test is
usually positive in those with disease) and specificity (the test is usually negative in those
without disease).
Examples of gynecologic- or obstetrically-related screening tests meeting these criteria include
Pap smears, mammography, oral glucose tolerance testing during pregnancy, and universal
testing of newborns for certain congenital disorders.[3,4] Other general tests of proven value
include blood pressure monitoring for those older than 21 years of age, cholesterol tests for those
35 to 65 years of age, and abdominal ultrasounds for persons (especially men) with coronary risk
factors and/or positive family history to screen for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Regrettably, many well-established screening tests are underused, especially among nonwhites,
those of lower socioeconomic status (SES), and those with inadequate or no health insurance. [5]
Such underuse has been clearly linked with increased risk for adverse outcome. For example,
SES differences in access to and use of screening mammography have been associated with
advanced stage at time of breast cancer diagnosis and lower survival rates, especially among
African-Americans.[6] SES differences in the use of prenatal testing for trisomy 21 have also been
associated with disparities in the live-birth prevalence of Down syndrome. Because incidence of
this disease does not vary according to SES, it has been demonstrated that early prenatal
diagnosis leads to a higher rate of elective termination of pregnancy by individuals of higher
SES.[7]
Unnecessary Testing by Clinicians and Independent Companies
Certain once-broadly accepted monitoring tests that were used routinely have not been supported
by outcome data. Examples from obstetric practice include electronic fetal heart rate monitoring
and fetal pulse oximetry. Routine electronic fetal heart rate monitoring has not been
demonstrated to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, but has been linked to increases in the
overall rate of cesarean delivery.[8,9] It has also been determined that routine use of fetal pulse
oximetry is not associated with either reduced rates of cesarean delivery or improvement in the
condition of newborns.[10] Although these tests are not recommended for routine assessment, they
remain in use in many hospitals in the United States.
Other monitoring tests may be misused. One example of this is fetal ultrasonography. Although it
is helpful in estimating gestational age, identifying twin pregnancies, and detecting genetic
anomalies, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) position is that routine
ultrasonographic screening during pregnancy is not mandatory. They deem routine use
reasonable when requested by a patient.[11] Most women in the United States undergo at least 1
or 2 ultrasounds during pregnancy; this level of exposure has never been associated with
significant risk and use may provide significant benefits. However, some expectant couples have
followed the lead of actors Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes and purchased (for costs ranging
between $15,000 and $200,000) their own ultrasound machines, which they use daily. [12]
There are some data (mostly from other vertebrates) suggesting that prolonged and frequent use
of fetal ultrasound can cause abnormalities in fetal brain development, behavior, and body
weight.[13] Even though such findings have not been substantiated in humans,[13] the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) considers promotion, selling or leasing of ultrasound equipment for the
purpose of making "keepsake fetal videos" an unapproved use of a medical device. [14] Such use
may also violate state laws and regulations.
Full Body Screening. Unnecessary testing has been promoted by both well-intentioned medical
practitioners and outright quacks for centuries. Due to lack of health literacy and/or a powerful
need for reassurance, many individuals are willing to pay -- sometime exorbitant amounts -- for
screening tests that lack scientific merit. Regrettably, numerous companies have recently been
created to meet this demand. For example, Biophysical 250 charges $3400 'to screen for
hundreds of diseases and conditions...including cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic
disorders, autoimmune disease, viral and bacterial disease and hormonal imbalance.'[15]
Full-body screening, via computed tomography (CT) scanning, became increasingly popular after
television talk show host Oprah Winfrey underwent testing in 2001.[16] The number of self-referral
body imaging centers, where such scans are often performed, totaled 161 in 2003, up from 88 in
2001.[17] One company, Ultra Life, offers 'real time color ultrasound' of various organs, or for those
inclined, a $500 'full body scan.'[18]
Companies offering 'metabolic screens' and whole body scans tend to market in areas of higher
SES. They prey on fear of heart disease and cancer, and on an individual's natural desire to
detect health problems early in hopes of achieving a cure, or at least avoiding potentially
disfiguring or toxic therapies.
Some companies also market testing devices such as body composition analyzers and bone
densitometers directly to healthcare providers. Having such equipment available no doubt
increases use and, when such testing is reimbursable, contributes to practice income. Education
programs may be offered to assist clinicians in 'optimizing the clinic visit.' Under certain
circumstances, this could be interpreted as 'optimizing receipts through the use of procedures of
questionable utility performed under dubious circumstances.'
A 2004 survey of 500 Americans found that 85% would choose a full-body CT scan over $1000
cash.[19] It is certainly problematic that these scans can deliver a radiation dose nearly 100 times
that of a typical mammogram.[20] A single scan exposes the person being scanned to a level of
radiation linked to increased cancer mortality in low-dose atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.[20] Undergoing such scans annually would substantially increase one's lifetime risk
of malignancy. Of course, this is not meant to imply that one should avoid medically indicated
diagnostic CT scans of particular organs.
Naturopathic Testing. Many 'naturopathic' approaches to diagnostic testing exist, including
iridology; pulse and tongue diagnosis; electrodiagnosis; hair, urine and stool analyses; applied
kinesiology; and some forms of acupuncture.[21,22] Often, such testing leads to recommendations
for treatment with unproven and/or dangerous supplements. Avoidance of standard prescription
drugs and surgical treatments in favor of alternative treatment such as colonic irrigation,
cranioelectrical stimulation, detoxification diets, and chelation therapy may occur. [21,22]
Most alternative practitioners do not encourage patients to forego standard medical treatment, but
instead offer naturopathic treatment as an adjunct. However, the risk that a patient may choose
an unproven alternative remedy over a proven effective traditional therapy could lead to
unnecessary harm, as could possible harmful interactions between traditional and non-traditional
therapies.[23]
Risks of Unnecessary Testing
Before considering a full-body scan or other non-proven screening test, individuals should be
made aware of the potential risks. False-positive test results are extremely common among
individuals with no signs or symptoms of disease; multiple tests increase the likelihood of falsepositive results. Such alarming, yet incorrect test results, can lead to further unnecessary
investigations, additional patient costs, heightened anxiety, and risk to future insurability.
Conversely, true positive results can lead to the overdiagnosis of conditions that would not have
become clinically significant, thus leading to further risky interventions. [1]
Examples of potentially harmful screening methods and possible outcomes include:

Pelvic ultrasounds on asymptomatic women to search for ovarian cancer could lead to
unnecessary laparoscopies and biopsies, with attendant complications; and

Screening all current and former smokers in the United States for lung cancer with a CT
scan would identify more than 180 million lung nodules, the vast majority of which would
be benign. Millions of patients with nodules could needlessly undergo invasive needle
lung biopsies and/or removal of parts of their lungs, resulting in many cases of impaired
breathing, pneumothorax, hemorrhage, infection, and even death.
Even commonly recommended tests carry a sometimes large risk of a false-positive result. For
example, among women in their early 40s with abnormal mammograms, it was shown that
approximately 57 women without cancer underwent further diagnostic workup for every 1 woman
found to have a malignancy.[24]
Unnecessary Testing, Luxury Care, and the Erosion of Science and Medical Ethics
One area where over-testing is rife is luxury primary care, also known as concierge care,
boutique medicine, retainer practice, executive healthcare, or premium practice.[25-27] Luxury care
contributes to the erosion of the scientific practice of medicine by offering 'clients' screening tests
that are often not indicated and can cause more harm than good.
There is no evidence documenting a higher quality of care in concierge practices, and little data
support the clinical or cost-effectiveness of many of the tests typically offered by such practices to
their asymptomatic clients. Examples include percent body fat measurements, chest radiographs
in smokers and nonsmokers aged 35 years and older to screen for lung cancer, electron-beam
CT scans and stress echocardiograms to look for evidence of coronary artery disease, and
abdominal-pelvic ultrasounds to screen for ovarian or liver cancer. [24,25,28,29] Other examples, such
as mammography starting at age 35 and genetic testing, are also controversial.
Although clients pay for these tests, technicians and equipment time are diverted to produce
immediate results. Because patients jump the queue in the radiology and phlebotomy suites,
tests for other patients with more appropriate/urgent needs may be delayed. Regrettably, such
luxury practices are often associated with, and actively promoted by, academic medical centers.
Such association sullies these institutions' images as arbiters of evidence-based medicine and
facilitates an erosion of professional ethics by perpetuating a two-tiered system of care within
institutions that have been the traditional healthcare providers to the indigent and where clinicians
in training learn professional ethics.
The use of clinically unjustifiable tests also erodes the scientific underpinnings of medical practice
and sends a mixed message to trainees and patients about when and why to use diagnostic
studies.[30] Such use also runs counter to physicians' ethical obligations 'to contribute to the
responsible stewardship of health care resources.'[31] Some might argue that if patients are willing
to pay for scientifically unsupported testing, they should be allowed to do so. However, such a
'buffet' approach to diagnosis over-medicalizes healthcare and makes a mockery of evidencebased medicine.
Pseudoscience and anti-science.<> Without adequate science and health education and
knowledge, individuals may lack the skepticism necessary to refuse unwarranted testing. Public
education, including science and health education, has suffered from decaying infrastructure,
funding cuts, sponsored 'educational' curricula produced by corporations, and high studentteacher ratios.[32-36] At least some of the increase in unnecessary testing is due to the general
erosion of science under the current federal administration, as manifested through:

Appointments to key scientific bodies based on corporate connections and political or
religious ideology, rather than scientific expertise;

Excessive corporate influence over legislation; and

The rewriting and even suppression of scientific policy statements.[31-36]
Recognizing Health Scams
Health scams are ubiquitous on the Internet and even in traditional media. Warning signs of
bogus science include[37,38]:

Claims pitched directly to the media, rather than via publication in peer-reviewed journals;

The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work;

Appeals to false authorities, emotion, or magical thinking;

The scientific effect involved is at the very limit of detection;

Evidence for the test or treatment is anecdotal and relies on subjective validation;

The promoter states a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries; and

The need to propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Patients should be encouraged to query their healthcare providers about sources of reliable
information and to consult providers before obtaining screening and/or diagnostic tests or
undergoing alternative treatments (including the use of 'supplements' and 'nutraceuticals'). The
US Food and Drug Administration has warned consumers against purchasing medical devices
from the Internet, including laboratory diagnostic kits to detect serious illnesses. [39]
Conclusion
Unnecessary testing is common among both traditional and alternative medical providers.
Improved science and health education, more nuanced and responsible communication of
medical information by the media, enhanced scientific integrity of governmental bodies,
eliminating -- or at least limiting the expansion of -- luxury care, and better communication
between patients and healthcare providers would all help contribute to increased use of
appropriate, less harmful screening practices and to enhanced health outcomes.
References
1. Fletcher SW. Evidence-based approach to prevention. UpToDate 2006 (January).
Available at: http://utdol.com/utd/content/topic.do?topicKey=screenpm/6460&view=text
Accessed March 23, 2007; subscription required.
2. Jackson JL, Berbano E. Total body imaging. UpToDate 2006 (August). Available at:
http://utdol.com/utd/content/topic.do?topicKey=genr_med/14732&view=text Accessed
March 23, 2007; subscription required.
3. Fletcher SW. Screening average risk women for breast cancer. UpToDate 2006
(September). Available at:
http://utdol.com/utd/content/topic.do?topicKey=screenpm/3044&view=text Accessed
March 23, 2007; subscription required.
4. Caliskan E. Kayikcioglu F, Ozturk N, Koc S, Haberal A. A population-based risk factor
scoring will decrease unnecessary testing for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes
mellitus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:524-530. Abstract
5. Donohoe MT. Comparing generalist and specialty care: discrepancies, deficiencies, and
excesses. In: Isaacs SL, Knickman J, eds. Generalist Medicine and the U.S. Health Care
System. New Jersey/San Francisco: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Jossey Bass,
2004. [Reprinted from Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1596-1608.]
6. Li CI. Racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer stage, treatment, and survival in the
United States. Ethn Dis. 2005;15:S5-S9.
7. Khoshnood B, De Vigan C, Vodovar, Breart G, Goffinet F, Blondel B. Advances in
medical technology and creation of disparities: the case of Down syndrome. Am J Public
Health. 2006;96:2139-2144. Abstract
8. Greene MF. Obstetricians still await a deus ex machine. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:22472248. Abstract
9. Clark SL, Hankins GDV. Temporal and demographic trends in cerebral palsy -- fact and
fiction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:628-633. Abstract
10. Bloom SL, Spong CY, Thorn E, et al. Fetal pulse oximetry and cesarean delivery. N Engl
J Med. 2006;355:2195-2102. Abstract
11. Sfakianaki AK, Copel J. Routine prenatal ultrasonography as a screening tool UpToDate
2006 (March). Available at:
http://utdol.com/utd/content/topic.do?topicKey=antenatl/18708&view=text Accessed
March 23, 2007; subscription required.
12. Kritz F. Doctors not fans of Tom Cruise's baby gifts. MSNBC 2005 (December 6).
Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10309963/ Accessed December 30, 2006.
13. Volkin L, Dargan RS. Study shows potential dangers of ultrasound in fetal development.
American Society of Radiologic Technologists 2006 (August 14). Available at:
http://www.asrt.org/content/News/IndustryNewsBriefs/Sono/studyshows062408.aspx.
Accessed December 28, 2006.
14. US Food and Drug Administration. Fetal keepsake videos. Center for Devices and
Radiological Health 2005 (August). Available at:
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/fetalvideos.html Accessed December 29, 2006.
15. Biophysical 250. What can Biophysical 250 tell you? Available at:
http://www.biophysicalcorp.com/about_the_test.aspx Accessed December 29, 2006.
16. Winfrey O. New medical tests. The Oprah Winfrey Show. Available at:
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_past_20010312.jhtml Accessed December
29, 2006.
17. Kalish GM, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH, Forman HP. Self-referred whole-body imaging:
Where are we now. Radiology. 2004;233:353-358. Abstract
18. Ultra Life Body Scan. Available at: http://www.ultralifebodyscan.com/ Accessed
December 29, 2006.
19. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ Jr, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in
the United States. JAMA. 2004;291:71-78. Abstract
20. Hampton T. Full-body CT scans scale up cancer risk. JAMA. 2004;292:1669-1670.
21. Atwood KC. Naturopathy: a critical appraisal. Medscape General Medicine 2003;5(4).
Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465994_print Accessed November 16,
2006.
22. Atwood KC. Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: myths and fallacies vs. truth.
Medscape Gen Med. 2004;6. Available at:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/471156_print. Accessed November 16, 2006.
23. Adams KE, Cohen MH, Eisenberg D, Jonsen AR. Ethical considerations of
complementary and alternative medical therapies in conventional medical settings. Ann
Intern Med. 2002;137:660-664. Abstract
24. Carney PA, Miglioretti CL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age,
breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening
mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168-175. Abstract
25. Donohoe MT. Luxury primary care, academic medical centers, and the erosion of science
and professional ethics. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:90-94. Abstract
26. Donohoe MT. Retainer practice: Scientific issues, social justice, and ethical perspectives.
American Medical Association Virtual Mentor. 2004;6. Available at: http://www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/category/12249.html Accessed December 29, 2006.
27. Donohoe MT. Standard vs. luxury care. In: Buetow S, Kenealy T, eds. Ideological
Debates in Family Medicine. New York: Nova Science Publishers; in press.
28. Connolly C. The wealth care system: when CEOs and VIPs need health care, they get
the best money can buy. A reporter finds out just how good that is. Washington Post.
2002 (May 28). Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A75592002May24.html Accessed December 29, 2006.
29. Connolly C. Healers for the well-heeled: 'Concierge' care sparks a debate on HMOs,
medicine and morals. Washington Post. 2002 (May 28);A01. Available at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18426-2002May27.html Accessed
December 29, 2006.
30. Cohen JJ. Missions of a medical school: A North American perspective. Acad Med.
1999;74:S27-S30. Abstract
31. American College of Physicians. Ethics manual. Ann Intern Med. 1998:128:576-594.
Abstract
32. Rosenstock L, Lee LJ. Attacks on science: the risks to evidence-based policy. Am J
Public Health. 2002;92:14-18. Abstract
33. Donohoe MT. Causes and health consequences of environmental degradation and social
injustice. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:573-587. Abstract
34. Donohoe MT. Teen pregnancy: a call for sound science and public policy. Z Magazine.
2003;16:14-16. Available at: http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Apr2003/donohoe0403.html
Accessed December 29, 2006.
35. Donohoe MT. Increase in obstacles to abortion: The American perspective in 2004. J Am
Med Womens Assn. 2005;60:16-25. Available at: http://www.amwadoc.org/index.cfm?objectid=1B138032-D567-0B25-57EE86AC69902184 Accessed
March 23, 2007.
36. Donohoe MT. Obstacles to abortion in the United States. Medscape Ob/Gyn Womens
Health. 2005;10. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/507404 Accessed
March 23, 2007.
37. Coker R. Distinguishing science and pseudoscience. Quackwatch. 2001 (May). Available
at: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/psuedo.html Accessed
December 29, 2006.
38. Park RL. Seven warning signs of bogus science. Quackwatch. 2003 (March). Available
at: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html Accessed
December 29, 2006.
39. US Food and Drug Administration. Buying medical devices online. Center for Devices
and Radiological Health. 2001(May). Available at:
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/buyingmeddevonline.html Accessed December 29,
2007.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful advice of Karen Adams, MD, FACOG.
Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP, Adjunct Lecturer, Community Health, Portland State University,
Portland, Oregon; Staff Physician, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaiser Sunnyside Medical
Center, Portland, Oregon
Disclosure: Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Public Health and Social Justice Website
http://www.phsj.org
martindonohoe@phsj.org