Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29333106›Full record

ArticlePoint of care2017

Which Point-of-Care Tests Would Be Most Beneficial to Add to Clinical Practice?: Findings From a Survey of 3 Family Medicine Clinics in the United States.

Victoria Hardy, William Alto, Gina A Keppel, Laura-Mae Baldwin, Matthew Thompson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Point of care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria HardyDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington; †Seattle Indian Health Board; and ‡Institute of Translational Health Sciences, Seattle, WA.
William AltoDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington; †Seattle Indian Health Board; and ‡Institute of Translational Health Sciences, Seattle, WA.
Gina A KeppelDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington; †Seattle Indian Health Board; and ‡Institute of Translational Health Sciences, Seattle, WA.
Laura-Mae BaldwinDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington; †Seattle Indian Health Board; and ‡Institute of Translational Health Sciences, Seattle, WA.
Matthew ThompsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington; †Seattle Indian Health Board; and ‡Institute of Translational Health Sciences, Seattle, WA.
University of Washington · USInstitute of Translational Health Sciences · USSeattle Indian Health Board · US

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
Institute of Translational Health SciencesUL1TR000423 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2012 to 2016
$49.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000423NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care tests (POCTs) are increasingly used in family medicine to facilitate screening, diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, and referral decisions for a variety of conditions. Point-of-care tests that clinicians believe might be beneficial to add to clinical practice and the conditions for which they would be most useful in family medicine remain poorly understood in the United States.

methodsForty-two clinicians at 3 family medicine residency clinics completed a brief survey asking which POCTs they believed would be beneficial to add to their clinical practice and the conditions POCTs would be most useful for. We calculated frequencies of reported POCTs and conditions using descriptive statistics.

resultsClinicians identified 34 POCTs that would be beneficial to add to family medicine, of which hemoglobin A

conclusionsClinicians identified a number of POCTs they viewed as being beneficial to add to their routine clinical practice, mostly to inform diagnosis and treatment planning. Some POCTs identified are available in the United States; thus, understanding barriers to implementation of these POCTs in primary care settings is necessary to optimize adoption.

Indexed as

CLIA waivedfamily medicinepoint-of-care testingprimary care

Identifiers

PMID29333106
PMCPMC5737459
OpenAlexW2768780351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.