Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30648144›Full record

ReviewACS central science2018

From Point-of-Care Testing to eHealth Diagnostic Devices (eDiagnostics).

Dionysios C Christodouleas, Balwinder Kaur, Parthena Chorti

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS central science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 208 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Engineering Innovative Interfaces for Point-of-Care Diagnostics.Current opinion in colloid & interface science · 2023
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dionysios C ChristodouleasDepartment of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854, United States.
Balwinder KaurDepartment of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854, United States.
Parthena ChortiDepartment of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854, United States.
University of Massachusetts Lowell · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Point-of-care devices were originally designed to allow medical testing at or near the point of care by health-care professionals. Some point-of-care devices allow medical self-testing at home but cannot fully cover the growing diagnostic needs of eHealth systems that are under development in many countries. A number of easy-to-use, network-connected diagnostic devices for self-testing are needed to allow remote monitoring of patients' health. This Outlook highlights the essential characteristics of diagnostic devices for eHealth settings and indicates point-of-care technologies that may lead to the development of new devices. It also describes the most representative examples of simple-to-use, point-of-care devices that have been used for analysis of untreated biological samples.

Identifiers

PMID30648144
PMCPMC6311959
OpenAlexW2900905586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.