Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31313873›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical practice2019

Point-of-care testing in primary care: A systematic review on implementation aspects addressed in test evaluations.

Deon Lingervelder, Hendrik Koffijberg, Ron Kusters, Maarten J IJzerman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Deon LingervelderHealth Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6529-2564
Hendrik KoffijbergHealth Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Ron KustersHealth Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Maarten J IJzermanHealth Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

General PractitionersHealth Plan ImplementationHumansPoint-of-Care TestingPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareRespiratory Tract Infections

Identifiers

PMID31313873
PMCPMC6790572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.