Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32661013›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2020

Integrating molecular point-of-care testing for influenza into primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility study.

Simon de Lusignan, Uy Hoang, Harshana Liyanage, Manasa Tripathy, Ivelina Yonova, Rachel Byford, Filipa Ferreira, Javier Diez-Domingo, Tristan Clark

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Rapid microbiological respiratory point-of-care testing: a qualitative study with primary care clinicians.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

9 authors.

Simon de LusignanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Uy HoangNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Harshana LiyanageNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Manasa TripathyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Ivelina YonovaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Rachel ByfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Filipa FerreiraNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Javier Diez-DomingoVaccine Research Department, FISABIO-Public Health, Valencia, Spain.
Tristan ClarkAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) post-doctoral fellow, NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, Southampton, UK.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundMolecular point-of-care testing (POCT) for influenza in primary care could influence clinical care and patient outcomes.

aimTo assess the feasibility of incorporating influenza POCT into general practice in England. DESIGN AND

settingA mixed-methods study conducted in six general practices that had not previously participated in respiratory virology sampling, which are part of the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre English sentinel surveillance network, from February 2019 to May 2019.

methodA sociotechnical perspective was adopted using the Public Health England POCT implementation toolkit and business process modelling notation to inform qualitative analysis. Quantitative data were collected about the number of samples taken, their representativeness, and the virology results obtained, comparing them with the rest of the sentinel system over the same weeks.

resultsA total of 312 POCTs were performed; 276 were used for quantitative analysis, of which 60 were positive for influenza and 216 were negative. The average swabbing rate was 0.4 per 1000 population and swab positivity was between 16.7% (

conclusionTesting for influenza using POCT is feasible in primary care and may improve antimicrobial use. However, further evidence from randomised trials of influenza POCT in general practice is needed.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanPoint-of-Care TestingEnglandFeasibility StudiesHumansPoint-of-Care SystemsPrimary Health Careantibioticantiviralgeneral practiceinfluenzamedical record systemspoint-of-care systems

Identifiers

PMID32661013
PMCPMC7363279

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.