ArticlePloS one2016
Use of Rapid, Point-of-Care Assays by Private Practitioners in Chennai, India: Priorities for Tuberculosis Diagnostic Testing.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stakeholder engagement to identify barriers to implementation and inform the development of point-of-care diagnostics for TB.IJTLD open · 2026Article
- Point of care devices in primary care setting in india: A scoping review.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Serum anti-Mce1A immunoglobulin detection as a tool for differential diagnosis of tuberculosis and latent tuberculosis infection in children and adolescents.Tuberculosis (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
settingPrivate practitioners are frequently the first point of healthcare contact for patients with tuberculosis (TB) in India. As new molecular tests are developed for point-of-care (POC) diagnosis of TB, it is imperative to understand these individuals' practices and preferences for POC testing.
objectiveTo evaluate rapid testing practices and identify priorities for novel POC TB tests among private practitioners in Chennai.
designWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 228 practitioners practicing in the private sector from January 2014 to February 2015 who saw at least one TB patient in the previous year. Practitioners were randomly selected from both the general community and a list of practitioners who referred patients to a public-private mix program for TB treatment. We used standardized questionnaires to collect data on current practices related to point-of-care diagnosis and interest in hypothetical POC tests. We used multivariable Poisson regression with robust estimates of standard error to calculate measures of association.
resultsAmong 228 private practitioners, about half (48%) utilized any rapid testing in their current practice, most commonly for glucose (43%), pregnancy (21%), and malaria (5%). Providers using POC tests were more likely to work in hospitals (56% vs. 43%, P = 0.05) and less likely to be chest specialists (21% vs. 54%, P<0.001). Only half (51%) of providers would use a hypothetical POC test for TB that was accurate, equipment-free, and took 20 minutes to complete. Chest specialists were half as likely to express interest in performing the hypothetical POC TB test in-house as other practitioners (aPR 0.5, 95%CI: 0.2-0.9). Key challenges to performing POC testing for TB in this study included time constraints, easy access to local private labs and lack of an attached lab facility.
conclusionAs novel POC tests for TB are developed and scaled up, attention must be paid to integrating these diagnostics into healthcare providers' routine practice and addressing barriers for POC testing.
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.