Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852699›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of a routine molecular point-of-care 'test-and-treat' strategy for influenza in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory illness (FluPOC): trial protocol.

Kate Beard, Nathan Brendish, Ahalya Malachira, Samuel Mills, Cathleen Chan, Stephen Poole, Tristan Clark

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05467007 (Urgent Care Management of Respiratory Illness Enabled With Novel Testing Pathway), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT05467007 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Urgent Care Management of Respiratory Illness Enabled With Novel Testing Pathway (URGENT): A Randomized Control Trial of Respiratory PCR Versus Standard Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorAndrew MeltzerRan2022 to 2023Enrolled360ConditionsViral Infection, Acute Respiratory Infection, Upper Resp Tract InfectionArmsBioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1-EZ
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors.

Kate BeardAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK kate.beard@uhs.nhs.uk.
Nathan BrendishAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Ahalya MalachiraDepartment of Infection, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Samuel MillsDepartment of Infection, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Cathleen ChanDepartment of Infection, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Stephen PooleAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Tristan ClarkAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2016-09-061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfluenza infections often remain undiagnosed in patients admitted to hospital due to lack of routine testing. When tested for, the diagnosis and treatment of influenza are often delayed due to the slow turnaround times of centralised laboratory PCR testing. Newer molecular systems, have comparable accuracy to laboratory PCR testing, and can generate a result in under 1 hour, making them potentially deployable as point-of-care tests (POCTs). High-quality evidence for the impact of routine POCT for influenza on clinical outcomes is, however, currently lacking. This large pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial aims to address this evidence gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FluPOC trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial evaluating adults admitted to a large teaching hospital and a district general hospital with an acute respiratory illness, during influenza season and defined by Public Health England. Up to 840 patients will be recruited over up to three influenza seasons, and randomised (1:1) to receive either POCT using the FilmArray respiratory panel, or routine clinical care. Clinical and infection control teams will be informed of the results in real time and where influenza is detected clinical teams will be encouraged to offer neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) treatment in accordance with national guidelines. Those allocated to standard clinical care will have a swab taken for later analysis to allow assessment of missed diagnoses. The outcomes assessment will be by retrospective case note analysis. The outcome measures include the proportion of influenza-positive patients detected and appropriately treated with NAIs, isolation facility use, antibiotic use, length of hospital stay, complications and mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Prior to commencing the study, approval was obtained from the South Central Hampshire A Ethics Committee (reference 17/SC/0368, granted 7 September 2017). Results generated from this protocol will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17197293.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care TestingAntiviral AgentsEnglandHospitalizationHumansInfluenza A virusInfluenza, HumanLength of StayMulticenter Studies as TopicPolymerase Chain ReactionPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicAntiviral Agentsadulthospitalisedinfluenzaneuraminidase inhibitorspoint-of-care test

Identifiers

PMID31852699
PMCPMC6937093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.