Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29385437›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2018

International definition of a point-of-care test in family practice: a modified e-Delphi procedure.

Angel M R Schols, Geert-Jan Dinant, Rogier Hopstaken, Christopher P Price, Ron Kusters, Jochen W L Cals

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05222711 (The Use of a Monitoring Device by General Practitioners During Out-of-hours Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT05222711 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

The Use of a Monitoring Device by General Practitioners During Out-of-hours Care: Protocol of a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKU LeuvenRan2022 to 2022Enrolled866ConditionsEmergencies, Heart Failure, Pulmonary Embolism, Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseArmsUse of the PICO(TM) monitoring device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Do patient engagement interventions work for all patients? A systematic review and realist synthesis of interventions to enhance patient safety.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network guidelines for the use of point-of-care tests forJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Angel M R ScholsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Geert-Jan DinantDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Rogier HopstakenSaltro, Diagnostic Center for Primary Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Christopher P PriceNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ron KustersDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Jochen W L CalsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The use of point-of-care tests (POCTs) in family practice is increasing, and the term POCT is often used in medical literature and clinical practice. Yet, no widely supported definition by several professional fields exists. Objective: To reach consensus on an international definition of a POCT in family practice. Methods: We performed a modified international e-Delphi procedure of four rounds among expert panel members from different professional backgrounds-family practitioners, laboratory specialists, policymakers, researchers and manufacturers. Results: Of 27 panel members from seven different countries, 26 participated in all rounds. Most panel members were active in POCT research or policymaking and 70% worked in family medicine. After choosing important components, structuring of answers and feedback, the following definition was chosen as the best or second best definition by 81% of panel members: a point-of-care test in family practice is a test to support clinical decision making, which is performed by a qualified member of the practice staff nearby the patient and on any part of the patient's body or its derivatives, during or very close to the time of consultation, to help the patient and physician to decide upon the best suited approach, and of which the results should be known at the time of the clinical decision making. Conclusion: The definition emerging from this study can inform family practitioners, laboratory specialists, policymakers and manufacturers on the most widely supported and recognized definition and could act as a clear starting point for the organization and execution of professional point-of-care testing in family practice worldwide.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueFamily PracticeInternationalityPoint-of-Care TestingAdministrative PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingHealth PersonnelHumans

Identifiers

PMID29385437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.