ArticlePoint of care2012
Minding the Gap: An approach to determine critical drivers in the development of Point of Care diagnostics.
Article in Point of care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnosing sexually transmitted infections in resource-constrained settings: challenges and ways forward.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2019Pooled it
- Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Understanding the adoption and use of point-of-care tests in Dutch general practices using multi-criteria decision analysis.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Point-of-Care Technology Research Network: Advancing Precision Medicine.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionA point of care test (POCT) for Chlamydia trachomatis detection is an urgent public health need. Technology advances in diagnostics have made solutions possible. Yet no reliable POCT exist. Our goal was to address the gap between chlamydia POCT needs and successful POCT development by determining which characteristics of POCT tests are most critical and if any flexibility in the attributes assigned those characteristics exist between technology developer and end user.
methodsWe employed a process known as WALEX (Warfare Analysis Laboratory Exercise) in combination with Design of Experiment (DOE) methodology using discrete choice experiments (DCE), to describe the attributes of the most realistic, rather than the most ideal POCT. The WALEX was conducted as interactive oral and simultaneous electronic discussion among experts with differing expertise, but linked by a common interest in development of a chlamydia POCT.
resultsOur studies demonstrated which features of the ideal chlamydia POCT were considered critical to test acceptance by users and which were open to negotiation. In particular, end users were more lenient on the requirement for the fastest ideal test and the lowest one time instrument costs, if the requirement for higher throughput, lowest cost and vaginal sample source collection were preserved. DOE methods used in forced choice question design provided confirmation of opinions derived from oral and electronic WALEX comments
conclusionsThe WALEX in combination with DCE helped us achieve our goal in identifying the gaps in the chlamydia POCT and determining the most realistic solutions to bridge those gaps.
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.