ReviewCardiovascular digital health journal2021
Point-of-care testing, your cardiologist, and affairs of the heart.
Review in Cardiovascular digital health journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evolving perceptions of point-of-care-technologies: Results from a nationwide survey of healthcare professionals.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Article
- A multiplexed immunochemical microarray for the determination of cardiovascular disease biomarkers.Mikrochimica acta · 2023Article
- Analytical Performances of the Novel i-STAT Alinity Point-of-Care Analyzer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Understanding Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Point-of-Care Testing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- COVID-19: a gray swan's impact on the adoption of novel medical technologies.Humanities & social sciences communications · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) has applications across medical specialties and holds promise to improve patient care. While cardiovascular medicine has been attractive for POCT applications in recent years, little is known about how cardiovascular health professionals perceive them. Objective: The objective of our study was to examine differences in perceptions and attitudes towards POCTs between cardiovascular health professionals compared to other healthcare professionals. Methods: We surveyed healthcare professionals to assess perceptions of POCT usage and their benefits and concerns between October 2019 and March 2020. Questions regarding POCT perceptions were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: We received a total of 148 survey responses; of the responders, 52% were male, 59% were physicians, and 50% worked in a hospital setting. We found that cardiology professionals were less likely, compared to other specialties, to view POCTs as improving patient management or reducing errors. These cardiology professionals were not constrained by resources or a lack of investment opportunities to implement these technologies. Conclusion: This study provides a better understanding of perceptions about POCTs among healthcare specialists. To improve patient outcomes through the adoption and usage of POCTs, greater collaboration is advised among key industry and healthcare stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.