Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20202351›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2010

Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice.

Caroline O Laurence, Angela Gialamas, Tanya Bubner, Lisa Yelland, Kristyn Willson, Phil Ryan, Justin Beilby, Point of Care Testing in General Practice Trial Management Group

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing in general practice out-of-hours services: tool or trap?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Diagnostic accuracy of CardiochekLipids in health and disease · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Caroline O LaurenceDiscipline of General Practice, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. caroline.laurence@adelaide.edu.au
Angela Gialamas
Tanya Bubner
Lisa Yelland
Kristyn Willson
Phil Ryan
Justin Beilby
Point of Care Testing in General Practice Trial Management Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care testing is increasingly being used in general practice to assist GPs in their management of patients with chronic disease. However, patient satisfaction and acceptability of point-of-care testing in general practice has not been widely studied.

aimTo determine if patients are more satisfied with point-of-care testing than with pathology laboratory testing for three chronic conditions. DESIGN OF STUDY: As part of a large multicentre, randomised, controlled trial assessing the use of point-of-care testing in Australian general practice, satisfaction was measured for patients having pathology testing performed by point-of-care testing devices or pathology laboratories. Patients in the trial were managed by GPs for diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, and/or anticoagulant therapy.

methodPatient satisfaction was measured using level of agreement with a variety of statements at the end of the study with a patient satisfaction questionnaire for both the intervention and control groups. Analysis was performed using a mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) with allowance for clustering at the practice level following Box-Cox transformations of the data to achieve normality.

resultsOverall, intervention patients reported that they were satisfied with point-of-care testing. In comparison with the control group, the intervention group had a higher level of agreement than control patients with statements relating to their satisfaction with the collection process (P<0.001) and confidence in the process (P<0.001). They also viewed point-of-care testing as strengthening their relationship with their GP (P = 0.010) and motivational in terms of better managing their condition (P<0.001).

conclusionThe results from this trial support patient satisfaction and acceptability of point-of-care testing in a general practice setting.

Indexed as

Family PracticePatient SatisfactionPoint-of-Care SystemsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaEpidemiologic MethodsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePhysician-Patient RelationsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID20202351
PMCPMC2828863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.