ReviewEJIFCC2021
POCT: An Inherently Ideal Tool in Pediatric Laboratory Medicine.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Platform for Decentralized Primary Healthcare: Ensuring Analytical Quality Through Central Laboratory Oversight.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of venous lactate values on blood gas analyser versus laboratory autoanalyser: A preliminary study.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
- A sensitive fluorescence biosensor based on ligation-transcription and CRISPR/Cas13a-assisted cascade amplification strategies to detect the H1N1 virus.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Recommendations on Rapid Diagnostic Point-of-care Molecular Tests for Respiratory Infections in the United Arab Emirates.The open respiratory medicine journal · 2024Review
- Immunosensors-The Future of Pathogen Real-Time Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Effectiveness of a Mobile App in Reducing Therapeutic Turnaround Time and Facilitating Communication between Caregivers in a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
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
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
Identifiers
34421483PMC8343051What 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.