Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25107438›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Current and future use of point-of-care tests in primary care: an international survey in Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, the UK and the USA.

Jeremy Howick, Jochen W L Cals, Caroline Jones, Christopher P Price, Annette Plüddemann, Carl Heneghan, Marjolein Y Berger, Frank Buntinx, John Hickner, Wilson Pace and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Point-of-care lactate testing for sepsis at presentation to health care: a systematic review of patient outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Jeremy HowickNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jochen W L CalsDeptartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Caroline JonesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Christopher P PriceNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Annette PlüddemannNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Carl HeneghanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Marjolein Y BergerDepartment of General Practice, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Frank BuntinxDeptartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands Academic Center for General Practice, Leuven, Belgium.
John HicknerFamily Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Wilson PaceDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Tony BadrickFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
Ann Van den BruelNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Caroline LaurenceDiscipline of General Practice, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Henk C van WeertDepartment of General Practice, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Evie van SeverenAcademic Center for General Practice, Leuven, Belgium.
Adriana ParrellaDiscipline of General Practice, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Matthew ThompsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDespite the growing number of point-of-care (POC) tests available, little research has assessed primary care clinician need for such tests. We therefore aimed to determine which POC tests they actually use or would like to use (if not currently available in their practice).

designCross-sectional survey.

settingPrimary care in Australia, Belgium (Flanders region only), the Netherlands, the UK and the USA.

participantsPrimary care doctors (general practitioners, family physicians). MAIN MEASURES: We asked respondents to (1) identify conditions for which a POC test could help inform diagnosis, (2) from a list of tests provided: evaluate which POC tests they currently use (and how frequently) and (3) determine which tests (from that same list) they would like to use in the future (and how frequently).

results2770 primary care clinicians across five countries responded. Respondents in all countries wanted POC tests to help them diagnose acute conditions (infections, acute cardiac disease, pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), and some chronic conditions (diabetes, anaemia). Based on the list of POC tests provided, the most common tests currently used were: urine pregnancy, urine leucocytes or nitrite and blood glucose. The most commonly reported tests respondents expressed a wish to use in the future were: D-dimer, troponin and chlamydia. The UK and the USA reported a higher actual and desired use for POC tests than Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. Our limited data suggest (but do not confirm) representativeness.

conclusionsPrimary care clinicians in all five countries expressed a desire for POC tests to help them diagnose a range of acute and chronic conditions. Rates of current reported use and desired future use were generally high for a small selection of POC tests, but varied across countries. Future research is warranted to explore how specific POC tests might improve primary care.

Indexed as

AustraliaBelgiumClinical Laboratory TechniquesData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPoint-of-Care SystemsPrimary Health CareUnited KingdomUnited StatesChemical PathologyEpidemiologyGeneral Medicine (see Internal Medicine)

Identifiers

PMID25107438
PMCPMC4127935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.