Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18681979›Full record

ArticleTrials2008

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction with point of care testing in a general practice setting - rationale, design and baseline characteristics.

Caroline Laurence, Angela Gialamas, Lisa Yelland, Tanya Bubner, Philip Ryan, Kristyn Willson, Briony Glastonbury, Janice Gill, Mark Shephard, Justin Beilby and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Self-monitoring and self-management of oral anticoagulation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The Evidence to Support Point-of-Care Testing.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2010
    Review
  15. Evolution of Point-of-Care Testing in Australia.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2010
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Caroline LaurenceDiscipline of General Practice, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. caroline.laurence@adelaide.edu.au
Angela Gialamas
Lisa Yelland
Tanya Bubner
Philip Ryan
Kristyn Willson
Briony Glastonbury
Janice Gill
Mark Shephard
Justin Beilby
Members of the PoCT Trial Management Committee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint of care testing (PoCT) may be a useful adjunct in the management of chronic conditions in general practice (GP). The provision of pathology test results at the time of the consultation could lead to enhanced clinical management, better health outcomes, greater convenience and satisfaction for patients and general practitioners (GPs), and savings in costs and time. It could also result in inappropriate testing, increased consultations and poor health outcomes resulting from inaccurate results. Currently there are very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in GP that have investigated these aspects of PoCT. DESIGN/

methodsThe Point of Care Testing in General Practice Trial (PoCT Trial) was an Australian Government funded multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction of PoCT in a GP setting.The PoCT Trial covered an 18 month period with the intervention consisting of the use of PoCT for seven tests used in the management of patients with diabetes, hyperlipidaemia and patients on anticoagulant therapy. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients within target range, a measure of therapeutic control. In addition, the PoCT Trial investigated the safety of PoCT, impact of PoCT on patient compliance to medication, stakeholder satisfaction, cost effectiveness of PoCT versus laboratory testing, and influence of geographic location. DISCUSSION: The paper provides an overview of the Trial Design, the rationale for the research methodology chosen and how the Trial was implemented in a GP environment. The evaluation protocol and data collection processes took into account the large number of patients, the broad range of practice types distributed over a large geographic area, and the inclusion of pathology test results from multiple pathology laboratories.The evaluation protocol developed reflects the complexity of the Trial setting, the Trial Design and the approach taken within the funding provided. The PoCT Trial is regarded as a pragmatic RCT, evaluating the effectiveness of implementing PoCT in GP and every effort was made to ensure that, in these circumstances, internal and external validity was maintained.

trial registration12612605000272695.

Identifiers

PMID18681979
PMCPMC2519057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.