Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30285232›Full record

SynthesisClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2019

The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Joseph Jonathan Lee, Jan Y Verbakel, Clare Rosemary Goyder, Thanusha Ananthakumar, Pui San Tan, Phillip James Turner, Gail Hayward, Ann Van den Bruel

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Do point-of-care tests (POCTs) offer a new paradigm for the management of patients with influenza?Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Integrating molecular point-of-care testing for influenza into primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
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

8 authors.

Joseph Jonathan LeeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jan Y VerbakelNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Clare Rosemary GoyderNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Thanusha AnanthakumarNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Pui San TanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Phillip James TurnerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gail HaywardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ann Van den BruelNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health MIC-2016–018Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care tests (POCTs) for influenza are diagnostically superior to clinical diagnosis, but their impact on patient outcomes is unclear.

methodsA systematic review of influenza POCTs versus usual care in ambulatory care settings. Studies were identified by searching six databases and assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Estimates of risk ratios (RR), standardised mean differences, 95% confidence intervals and I2 were obtained by random effects meta-analyses. We explored heterogeneity with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression.

results12,928 citations were screened. Seven randomized studies (n = 4,324) and six non-randomized studies (n = 4,774) were included. Most evidence came from paediatric emergency departments. Risk of bias was moderate in randomized studies and higher in non-randomized studies. In randomized trials, POCTs had no effect on admissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.42, I2 = 34%), returning for care (RR 1.00 95% CI = 0.77-1.29, I2 = 7%), or antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, I2 = 70%), but increased prescribing of antivirals (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.95-3.60; I2 = 0%). Further testing was reduced for full blood counts (FBC) (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.92 I2 = 0%), blood cultures (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.99; I2 = 0%) and chest radiography (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96; I2 = 32%), but not urinalysis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-w1.07; I2 = 20%). Time in the emergency department was not changed. Fewer non-randomized studies reported these outcomes, with some findings reversed or attenuated (fewer antibiotic prescriptions and less urinalysis in tested patients).

conclusionsPoint-of-care testing for influenza influences prescribing and testing decisions, particularly for children in emergency departments. Observational evidence shows challenges for real-world implementation.

Indexed as

HospitalizationPoint-of-Care SystemsAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsEmergency Service, HospitalHumansInfluenza, HumanPoint-of-Care TestingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agentsdiagnosticsinfluenza

Identifiers

PMID30285232
PMCPMC6579962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.