Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31183771›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2020

Optimizing the use of point of care testing devices for screening patients.

Elie Sarraf, Donald M Mathews, Mitchell H Tsai, Andrew J Goodwin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Expanding the boundaries of point of care testing.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elie SarrafDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA. dr.elsar@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2925-0850
Donald M MathewsDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA.
Mitchell H TsaiDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA.
Andrew J GoodwinDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Point of Care Testing (POCT) devices are regularly used to improve clinical workflows in the hospital setting despite generally having inferior performance when compared to standardized laboratory analyzers. We describe a method to improve the efficacy of using a POCT device as a screening test when the laboratory values occur over a continuum and applied this methodology to the process of International Normalized Ratios (INR) screening on day of surgery. Following IRB approval, laboratory INR values on the day of surgery were extracted from the University of Vermont Medical Center operating room's electronic health record. Two separate theoretical POCT device values were simulated from the performance characterized by two prior publications (Jacobson and Hur). The sensitivities and specificities of the two theoretical devices were calculated over a range of values, in order detect an INR value greater or equal than 1.5 and 1.8. Subsequently, the percentage of the population with an INR value over each threshold was also calculated. Laboratory data from March 2008 to December 2016 were collected, and 9320 discrete INR values were compiled ranging from 0.8 to > 20. Two POCT devices were simulated using that dataset. The sensitivities and specificities over a range of values were determined, and the optimal cutoff values were identified for each device separately. Calculating the sensitivities and specificities over a range of values can optimize the clinical efficacy of a POCT device. By optimizing the use of POCT devices, hospitals may be able to improve clinical processes and reduce costs.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingElectronic Health RecordsEquipment DesignHumansInternational Normalized RatioMedical InformaticsPreoperative PeriodProbabilityReference StandardsSensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareCost containmentPoint of Care TestingScreening

Identifiers

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.