This is not a comprehensive list of literature on this topic, if you would like a search to on a specific clinical intervention to determine if it is overused or of low impact please click here.
Articles on the overuse of health services, or interventions of low impact:
Chassin, MR et al. 1987. Does inappropriate use explain geographic variation in the use of healthcare services. JAMA 258(18):2533-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3312655 (last accessed 11/09/2015)
”… studied the appropriateness of use of coronary angiography, carotid endarterectomy, and upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy and its relationship to geographic variations in the rates of use of these procedures … We conclude that differences in appropriateness cannot explain geographic variations in the use of these procedures.”
Leape, LL et al. 1990. Does inappropriate use explain small-area variations in the use of health care services? JAMA 263(5):669-72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2404147 (last accessed 11/09/2015)
“ … studied the relationship of the appropriateness of the use of coronary angiography, carotid endarterectomy, and upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy to their rates of use in 23 adjacent counties in one state. … We conclude that little of the variation in the rates of use of these procedures can be explained by inappropriate use.”
Diao D, Wright JM, Cundiff DK, Gueyffier F. Pharmacotherapy for mild hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(8):CD006742.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006742.pub2/abstract (last accessed 11/09/2015)
Authors’ conclusions: “Antihypertensive drugs used in the treatment of adults (primary prevention) with mild hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mmHg and/or diastolic BP 90-99 mmHg) have not been shown to reduce mortality or morbidity in RCTs. Treatment caused 9% of patients to discontinue treatment due to adverse effects. More RCTs are needed in this prevalent population to know whether the benefits of treatment exceed the harms.”
Thorlund, JB., Juhl, CB., Roos, EM., et al. Anthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms. BMJ 2015;350:h2747
http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2747 (last accessed 11/09/2015)
“The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis.”