Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34421483›Full record

ReviewEJIFCC2021

POCT: An Inherently Ideal Tool in Pediatric Laboratory Medicine.

Siobhan Wilson, Mary Kathryn Bohn, Khosrow Adeli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EJIFCC, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

3 authors.

Siobhan WilsonDivision of Clinical Biochemistry, Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mary Kathryn BohnDivision of Clinical Biochemistry, Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Khosrow AdeliDivision of Clinical Biochemistry, Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Point of care testing (POCT) is important in the provision of timely laboratory test results and continues to gain specific appreciation in the setting of pediatric healthcare. POCT platforms offer several advantages compared to central laboratory testing, including improved clinical outcomes, reduced time to diagnosis, length of stay, and blood volume requirements, as well as increased accessibility. These advantages are most pronounced in acute care settings such as pediatric emergency departments, intensive care units, and in remote settings, wherein rapid patient assessment and prognostication is essential to patient outcomes. The current review provides an overview and critical discussion of the evidence supporting clinical implementation of POCT systems in pediatric clinical decision-making, including but not limited to the diagnosis of viral and bacterial infection, identification of critical glucose and electrolyte dysregulation, and prognostication of post-operative inpatients. Important considerations for test result reporting and interpretation are also discussed, including analytical concordance between POCT systems and central laboratory analyzers as well as availability of pediatric reference intervals for key analytes on POCT systems. Notably, a paucity of evidence-based pediatric reference intervals for test interpretation for critical care parameters on POCT platforms is highlighted, warranting further study and unique consideration prior to clinical implementation.

Indexed as

critical careemergencypediatricpoint of careremote

Identifiers

PMID34421483
PMCPMC8343051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.