Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2018
Comparison of the use of comprehensive point-of-care test panel to conventional laboratory process in emergency department.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-of-care diagnostics are central to acute medicine delivery.Future healthcare journal · 2026Article
- A Mini-Review of Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing in Sepsis in the Emergency Department.EJIFCC · 2026Review
- Clinical utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and a novel PCR-based point-of-care testing (POCT) for pathogen detection in pulmonary infections: a retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Benefits of emergency department routine blood test performance on patients whose allocated triage category is not time critical: a retrospective study.BMC health services research · 2024Observational
- In-Situ Integration of 3D C-MEMS Microelectrodes with Bipolar Exfoliated Graphene for Label-Free Electrochemical Cancer Biomarkers Aptasensor.Micromachines · 2022Article
- Point-of-Care Tests' Role in Time Metrics of Urgent Interventions in Emergency Department; a Systematic Review of Literature.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2022Review
- Review
- Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Microfluidic Point-of-Care Testing: Commercial Landscape and Future Directions.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Predicting 30-day mortality using point-of-care testing; an external validation and derivation study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Perspectives On Blood-Based Point-Of-Care Diagnostics.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2019Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we hypothesized that point of care testing (POCT) would reduce length of stay (LOS) in emergency department (ED) when compared to central laboratory testing and be a factor in patient discharge destination.
methodsA single centre observational study was performed in ED non-ambulatory patients. Blood testing was performed either with POC instruments for blood gases and chemistry panel, full blood count, and CRP, or at central laboratory, or as a combination of both. Blood draw and POCTs were performed by experienced nurses.
resultsDuring the 4-week study period, 1759 patients underwent sample testing (POCT: n = 160, central lab: n = 951; both n = 648). Median waiting time for blood sampling was 19 min less in POCT than central laboratory (0:52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0:46-1:02) vs. 1:11 (95% CI 1:05-1:14), p < 0.001). POCT results were available faster in both discharge groups, as expected. When imaging was not required, patients in POCT group were discharged home 55 min faster (4:57 (95% CI 3:59-6:17) vs. 5:52 (95% CI 5:21-6:35), p = 0.012) and 1 h 22 min faster when imaging was performed (5:48 (95% CI 5:26-6:18) vs. 7:10 (95% CI 6:47-8:26), p = 0.010). Similar reduction in sampling time and LOS was not seen among those admitted to hospital.
conclusionsPOCT shortened the laboratory process and made results available faster than the central lab. This allowed patients to be discharged home quicker. Thus, with proper training and education of the ED care team, POCT can be used as an effective tool for improving patient flow.
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.