Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2019
The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03102216 (An Assessment of the Impact of Enhanced Workflow Patterns Associated With Upfront, Early Point-of-care Testing on Costs, Waiting and Disposition Times in an Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
An Assessment of the Impact of Enhanced Workflow Patterns Associated With Upfront, Early Point-of-care Testing on Costs, Waiting and Disposition Times in an Emergency Department
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Design and cost-effectiveness assessment of a model based on point-of-care testing for the improvement of the resolution of hospital emergencies.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Transformative impact of point-of-care testing in critical care.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Lateral flow assay: a promising rapid point-of-care testing tool for infections and non-communicable diseases.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2023Review
- REASSURED diagnostics at point-of-care in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Rapid Quantum Magnetic IL-6 Point-of-Care Assay in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Implementation of point-of-care blood gas testing at a large community hospital: Cost analysis, sepsis bundle compliance, and employee engagement.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2021Article
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
backgroundTime-saving is constantly sought after in the Emergency Department (ED), and Point-of-Care (POC) testing has been shown to be an effective time-saving intervention. However, when direct costs are compared, these tests commonly appear to be cost-prohibitive. Economic viability may become apparent when the time-saving is translated into financial benefits from staffing, time- and cost-saving. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic investigations utilised prior to medical contact for ED patients with common medical complaints.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of upfront, POC testing. Eleven combinations of POC equivalents of commonly-used special investigations (blood tests (i-STAT and complete blood count (CBC)), electrocardiograms (ECGs) and x-rays (LODOX® (Low Dose X-ray)) were evaluated compared to the standard ED pathway with traditional diagnostic tests. The economic viability of each permutation was assessed using the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves. Expenses related to the POC test implementation were compared to the control group while taking staffing costs and time-saving into account.
resultsThere were 897 medical patients randomised to receive various combinations of POC tests. The most cost-effective combination was the i-STAT+CBC permutation which, based on the time saving, would ultimately save money if implemented. All LODOX®-containing permutations were costlier but still saved time. Non-LODOX® permutations were virtually 100% cost-effective if an additional cost of US$50 per patient was considered acceptable. Higher staffing costs would make using POC testing even more economical.
conclusionsIn certain combinations, upfront, POC testing is more cost-effective than standard diagnostic testing for common ED undifferentiated medical presentations - the most economical POC test combination being the i-STAT + CBC. Upfront POC testing in the ED has the potential to not only save time but also to save money.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03102216.
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.