ArticleOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2019
Perspectives On Blood-Based Point-Of-Care Diagnostics.
Article in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promise and perils of paper-based point-of-care nucleic acid detection for endemic and pandemic pathogens.Lab on a chip · 2023Review
- Molecular Detection of Neglected Tropical Diseases: The Case for Automated Near-Point-of-Care Diagnosis of Leishmaniasis.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- Microfluidic-Based Detection of AML-Specific Biomarkers Using the Example of Promyelocyte Leukemia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint of Care (POC) diagnostics are an essential component of modern medicine and are employed in a variety of clinical disciplines to improve patient outcomes and provider efficiency. Despite these benefits, there are aspects of POC testing which may still hold room for improvement. In the present study, a group of healthcare professionals familiar with different facets of blood-based POC testing provided their perspectives on the benefits and challenges of POC testing within their respective fields. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was conducted from April to June 2019, in Colorado, United States of America. Five healthcare professionals, each working in a distinct field (anesthesiology, nursing, emergency medicine, trauma surgery, and POC management) were interviewed. Results from each of the interviews were transcribed as qualitative perspectives on POC diagnostics. DISCUSSION: The general consensus among participants in this study is that POC testing is tremendously beneficial, providing rapid test results, increased access to diagnostics, and improvements in hospital efficiency. However, significant challenges remain in blood-based POC diagnostics, particularly in maintaining sample quality, due to the fact that devices used for sample acquisition and handling are not designed for POC. This raises the possibility for interferents like hemolysis to occur, which may alter diagnostic results. Errors in POC diagnostics, whether due to sample, operator, or instrument error, may cause providers to lose confidence in the test. This lack of confidence can lead to duplicate testing and delayed patient diagnoses.
conclusionThe perspectives presented in this study suggest there is a significant need for improvement in the pre-analytical phase of POC testing, and that current practice employs specimen collection technology not designed for POC. Therefore, one hypothesis is that the introduction of a collection device designed specifically for POC could reduce pre-analytical errors, standardize sample quality, improve efficiency, and further benefit patient care.
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.