ArticlePloS one2012
Evaluating operational specifications of point-of-care diagnostic tests: a standardized scorecard.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Criteria required for an acceptable point-of-care test for UTI detection: Obtaining consensus using the Delphi technique.PloS one · 2018Guideline
- Evaluation of Proflo-U® Platform: A Novel Fluorescence-Based Point of Care Device for Quantitative Estimation of Urine Albumin.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2025Article
- Innovative COVID-19 Point-of-Care Diagnostics Suitable for Tuberculosis Diagnosis: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Beyond accuracy: leveraging ASSURED criteria for field evaluation of point-of-care tests for food animal diseases.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- The potential of diagnostic point-of-care tests (POCTs) for infectious and zoonotic animal diseases in developing countries: Technical, regulatory and sociocultural considerations.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2021Review
- Operational characteristics of an antibody detecting point of care test for Taenia solium infections in a community and hospital setting.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Overcoming Challenges with the Adoption of Point-of-Care Testing: From Technology Push and Clinical Needs to Value Propositions.Point of care · 2020Article
- PIMA™ point-of-care testing for CD4 counts in predicting antiretroviral initiation in HIV-infected individuals in KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2016Article
- HIV, tuberculosis, and noncommunicable diseases: what is known about the costs, effects, and cost-effectiveness of integrated care?Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2014Review
- Diagnostic point-of-care tests in resource-limited settings.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2014Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The expansion of HIV antiretroviral therapy into decentralized rural settings will increasingly require simple point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests that can be used without laboratory infrastructure and technical skills. New POC test devices are becoming available but decisions around which technologies to deploy may be biased without systematic assessment of their suitability for decentralized healthcare settings. To address this, we developed a standardized, quantitative scorecard tool to objectively evaluate the operational characteristics of POC diagnostic devices. The tool scores devices on a scale of 1-5 across 30 weighted characteristics such as ease of use, quality control, electrical requirements, shelf life, portability, cost and service, and provides a cumulative score that ranks products against a set of ideal POC characteristics. The scorecard was tested on 19 devices for POC CD4 T-lymphocyte cell counting, clinical chemistry or hematology testing. Single and multi-parameter devices were assessed in each of test categories. The scores across all devices ranged from 2.78 to 4.40 out of 5. The tool effectively ranked devices within each category (p<0.01) except the CD4 and multi-parameter hematology products. The tool also enabled comparison of different characteristics between products. Agreement across the four scorers for each product was high (intra-class correlation >0.80; p<0.001). Use of this tool enables the systematic evaluation of diagnostic tests to facilitate product selection and investment in appropriate technology. It is particularly relevant for countries and testing programs considering the adoption of new POC diagnostic tests.
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.