Trial reportScandinavian journal of primary health care2014
Cost consequences of point-of-care troponin T testing in a Swedish primary health care setting.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2014. 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.
- Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Pooled it
- Acceptability of Cardiovascular Disease Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Primary Care Settings: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Investigating pre-hospital troponin testing in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review.British paramedic journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a rule-out algorithm of acute myocardial infarction in low-risk patients: emergency primary care versus hospital setting.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Implementation of High-Sensitivity and Point-of-Care Cardiac Troponin Assays into Practice: Some Different Thoughts.Clinical chemistry · 2021Review
- How to choose a point-of-care testing for troponin.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
- Troponin Testing in the Emergency Department: Real world experience.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2017Article
- The cost-utility of point-of-care troponin testing to diagnose acute coronary syndrome in primary care.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Article
- Prognosis of undiagnosed chest pain: linked electronic health record cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Article
- Asia-Pacific consensus statement on the optimal use of high-sensitivity troponin assays in acute coronary syndromes diagnosis: focus on hs-TnI.Heart Asia · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care troponin T testing (POCT-TnT) for the management of patients with chest pain in primary care.
designProspective observational study with follow-up.
settingThree primary health care (PHC) centres using POCT-TnT and four PHC centres not using POCT-TnT in south-east Sweden. PATIENTS: All patients ≥ 35 years of age, contacting one of the PHC centres for chest pain, dyspnoea on exertion, unexplained weakness and/or fatigue, with no other probable cause than cardiac, were included. Symptoms must have commenced or worsened during the previous seven days.
main outcome measuresEmergency referral rates, diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or unstable angina (UA), and costs were collected for 30 days after the patient sought care at the PHC centre.
resultsA total of 196 patients with chest pain were included: 128 in PHC centres with POCT-TnT and 68 in PHC centres without POCT-TnT. Fewer patients from the PHC centres with POCT-TnT (n = 32, 25%) were emergently referred to hospital than from centres without POCT-TnT (n = 29, 43%; p = 0.011). Eight patients (6.2%) from PHC centres with POCT-TnT were diagnosed with AMI or UA compared with six patients (8.8%) from centres without POCT-TnT (p = 0.565). Two patients with AMI or UA were classified as missed cases from PHC centres with POCT-TnT and there were no missed cases from PHC centres without POCT-TnT. SKr290 000 was saved per missed case of AMI or UA.
conclusionThe use of POCT-TnT in primary care may be cost saving but at the expense of missed cases.
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.