Trial reportBMC health services research2010
The cost-effectiveness of point of care testing in a general practice setting: results from a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patients' satisfaction associated with portable coagulometers for warfarin monitoring: a cross-sectional study.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial-Based Economic Evaluations Conducted alongside Studies Embedded in Australian Healthcare Services and Programs: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Review
- Greater Patient Adherence with Point-of-Care Services in Medical Student-Run Multispecialty Free Clinics.Journal of community health · 2026Article
- Advances toward At-Home Measurements of Complete Blood Cell Counts and Other Hematological Parameters.Analytical chemistry · 2025Review
- Comparison of venous lactate values on blood gas analyser versus laboratory autoanalyser: A preliminary study.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Budget impact analyses of hemoglobin A1c and lipid panel point-of-care testing with Afinion™ 2 in Canada and Italy.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Performance of the Flash10 COVID-19 point-of-care molecular test.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of Two Strategies for Hypercholesterolemia Detection through Point-of-Care Testing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Impact of Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio Point-of-Care Testing on the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetic Kidney Disease.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Observational
- Review of Health Economics of Point-of-Care Testing Worldwide and Its Efficacy of Implementation in the Primary Health Care Setting in Remote Australia.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2020Review
- Detection of Lower Albuminuria Levels and Early Development of Diabetic Kidney Disease Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Rule Extraction Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Implementation of HbA1c Point of Care Testing in 3 German Medical Practices: Impact on Workflow and Physician, Staff, and Patient Satisfaction.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018Article
- Economic evaluation of point-of-care testing in the remote primary health care setting of Australia's Northern Territory.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
- Impact of HbA1c Testing at Point of Care on Diabetes Management.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Review
- Exploring the barriers and facilitators to use of point of care tests in family medicine clinics in the United States.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Article
- Existing and Emerging Technologies for Point-of-Care Testing.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile point of care testing (PoCT) for general practitioners is becoming increasingly popular, few studies have investigated whether it represents value for money. This study aims to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of PoCT in general practice (GP) compared to usual testing practice through a pathology laboratory.
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial with 4,968 patients followed up for 18 months and fifty-three general practices in urban, rural and remote locations across three states in Australia.The incremental costs and health outcomes associated with a clinical strategy of PoCT for INR, HbA1c, lipids, and ACR were compared to those from pathology laboratory testing. Costs were expressed in year 2006 Australian dollars. Non-parametric bootstrapping was used to generate 95% confidence intervals.
resultsThe point estimate of the total direct costs per patient to the health care sector for PoCT was less for ACR than for pathology laboratory testing, but greater for INR, HbA1c and Lipids, although none of these differences was statistically significant. PoCT led to significant cost savings to patients and their families. When uncertainty around the point estimates was taken into account, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PoCT was found to be unfavourable for INR, but somewhat favourable for ACR, while substantial uncertainty still surrounds PoCT for HbA1c and Lipids.
conclusionsThe decision whether to fund PoCT will depend on the price society is willing to pay for achievement of the non-standard intermediate outcome indicator.
trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12605000272695.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.