Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32111610›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Impact of point-of-care panel tests in ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clare Goyder, Pui San Tan, Jan Verbakel, Thanusha Ananthakumar, Joseph J Lee, Gail Hayward, Philip J Turner, Ann Van Den Bruel

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Point-of-care tests in the emergency medical services: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. An analysis of ambulance re-contacts after non-conveyance: a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. How Close Are We to Patient-Side Troponin Testing?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Clare GoyderNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxon, UK clare.goyder@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7461-9661
Pui San TanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxon, UK.
Jan VerbakelNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxon, UK.
Thanusha AnanthakumarNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxon, UK.
Joseph J LeeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxon, UK.
Gail HaywardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxon, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0852-627X
Philip J TurnerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxon, UK.
Ann Van Den BruelDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR300105Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis article summarises all the available evidence on the impact of introducing blood-based point-of-care panel testing (POCT) in ambulatory care on patient outcomes and healthcare processes.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials and before-after studies. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, Science Citation Index from inception to 22 October 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Included studies were based in ambulatory care and compared POCT with laboratory testing. The primary outcome was the time to decision regarding disposition that is, admission/referral termed disposition decision (DD) time. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) at the ambulatory care unit/practice and mortality.

results19 562 patients from nine studies were included in the review, eight of these were randomised-controlled trials, and one was a before-after study. All the studies were based in either emergency departments or the ambulance service; no studies were from primary care settings. General panel tests performed at the POCT resulted in DDs being made 40 min faster (95% CI -42.2 to -36.6, I DISCUSSION: Although statistical and clinical heterogeneity is evident and only a small number of studies were included in the meta-analysis, our results suggest that POCTs might lead to faster discharge decisions. Future research should be performed in primary care and identify how POCTs can contribute meaningful changes to patient care rather than focusing on healthcare processes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016035426.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentAmbulatory CareHumansLength of StayPoint-of-Care Testingaccident & emergency medicinechemical pathologypaediatric A&E and ambulatory carePOCTpoint of care testsprimary care

Identifiers

PMID32111610
PMCPMC7050348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.