SynthesisInternational journal of clinical practice2019
Point-of-care testing in primary care: A systematic review on implementation aspects addressed in test evaluations.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Accuracy and technical characteristics of CYP2C19 point of care tests: a systematic review.Pharmacogenomics · 2024Pooled it
- Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of point-of-care panel tests in ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Point-of-care testing in primary care: A systematic review on implementation aspects addressed in test evaluations.International journal of clinical practice · 2019Pooled it
- Use of the FebriDx® host-response point-of-care test may reduce antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility study.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Trial
- Acceptability of Cardiovascular Disease Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Primary Care Settings: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2026Review
- How to identify respiratory pathogens in primary health care - a review on the benefits, prospects and pitfalls in using point of care tests.Infection · 2025Review
- GPs' acceptability and feasibility for using point-of-care tests for cancer in primary care: a qualitative interview study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Clinical Evaluation of the Healgen Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test as a Point-of-Care Diagnostic Tool.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2025Article
- European Consensus on Malabsorption-UEG & SIGE, LGA, SPG, SRGH, CGS, ESPCG, EAGEN, ESPEN, and ESPGHAN: Part 2: Screening, Special Populations, Nutritional Goals, Supportive Care, Primary Care Perspective.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- C-reactive protein testing in primary care and antibiotic use in children with acute respiratory tract infections in Kyrgyzstan: an open-label, individually randomised, controlled trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Implementing in-vitro diagnostic point-of-care tests in community health care: how can we make this work?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Evaluation of utilisation and consequences of CRP point-of-care-testing in primary care practices: qualitative interviews with GPs from Germany.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Can we trust published evidence on point-of-care tests for cholesterol? A rapid review.BMJ open · 2025Review
- "Time to Change": To What Extent Could Non-Sputum Sampling Accelerate the Fight Against Tuberculosis-A Qualitative Study Among End-Users.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical Need for Point-of-Care Testing for Diabetes in Clinical and Laboratory Improvement Amendments-Waived Settings.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- Community pharmacy-led point-of-care testing (POCT): expanding roles and strengthening health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Qualitative evaluation of a molecular point-of-care testing study for influenza in UK primary care.BJGP open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere are numerous point-of-care tests (POCTs) available on the market, but many of these are not used. This study reviewed literature pertaining to the evaluation/usage of POCTs in primary care, to investigate whether outcomes being reported reflect aspects previously demonstrated to be important for general practitioners (GPs) in the decision to implement a POCT in practice.
methodsScopus and Medline were searched to identify studies that evaluated a POCT in primary care. We identified abstracts and full-texts consisting of applied studies (eg trials, simulations, observational studies) and qualitative studies (eg interviews, surveys). Data were extracted from the included studies, such as the type of study, the extent to which manufacturers were involved in the study, and the biomarker/assay measured by the test(s). Studies were evaluated to summarise the extent to which they reported on, amongst others, clinical utility, user-friendliness, turnaround-time and technical performance (aspects previously identified as important).
resultsThe initial search resulted in 1398 publications, of which 125 met the inclusion criteria. From these studies, 83 POCTs across several disease areas (including cardiovascular disease, venous thromboembolism and respiratory-tract-infections) were identified. There was an inconsistency between what is reported in the studies and what GPs consider important. GPs perceive clinical utility as the most important aspect, yet this was rarely included explicitly in test evaluations in the literature, with only 8% of evaluations incorporating it in their analysis/discussion.
conclusionsThis review showed that, despite the growing market and development of new POCTs, studies evaluating such tests fail to report on aspects that GPs find important. To ensure that an evaluation of a POCT is useful to primary care clinicians, future evaluations should not only focus on the technical performance aspects of a test, but also report on the aspects relating to the clinical utility and risks.
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.