Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35418027›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

The impact of a rapid home test on telehealth decision-making for influenza: a clinical vignette study.

Xinyan Cai, Mark H Ebell, Rachel E Geyer, Matthew Thompson, Nicole L Gentile, Barry Lutz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. 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
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xinyan CaiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30601, USA.
Mark H EbellDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30601, USA. ebell@uga.edu.
Rachel E GeyerDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Matthew ThompsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Nicole L GentileDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Barry LutzDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
University of Washington · USUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome testing for influenza has the potential to aid triage and management decisions for patients with influenza-like illness. As yet, little is known about the effect of the home influenza testing on clinical decision-making via telehealth. The goal of this study was to determine the clinicians' decision thresholds for influenza and whether the availability of a home influenza test affects clinical decisions.

methodsWe identified primary care physicians at 4 different sites in the US, largely via in-person continuing education meetings. Clinicians were asked for each vignette whether to treat empirically ("rule in"), ask the patient come to the clinic for further evaluation ("test"), or neither test nor treat ("rule out"). They were then given the results of a home influenza test, and were again asked to select from these three options. We measured the agreement of physician estimates of the likelihood of influenza with the probability based on a clinical prediction model. The test and treatment thresholds of influenza were determined based on mixed-effect logistic regressions.

resultsIn total, 202 clinicians made 570 sets of clinical decisions. Agreement between estimated and actual probability of influenza was fair. The test and treatment thresholds were 24% (95% CI: 22% to 25%) and 63% (95% CI: 58% to 65%) before revealing the actual likelihood of influenza. After providing the results of a home flu test the thresholds were similar, 26% (95% CI: 24% to 29%) and 59% (95% CI: 56% to 62%). However, approximately half of clinicians changed their cliical management decision after being given the home influenza test result, largely by categorizing more patients in the "rule out" and "rule in" groups, and reducing the need for in-person evaluation from 41% of patients to only 20%.

conclusionIn the context of a telehealth visit for a patient with influenza-like illness, we identified a test threshold of approximately 25% and a treatment threshold of approximately 60%. Adding the home influenza test results reduced uncertainty and significantly decreased the need for in-person visits.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanTelemedicineClinical Decision-MakingHumansModels, StatisticalPrognosisDecision-makingDecision thresholdsHome testingInfluenzaTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID35418027
PMCPMC9006488
OpenAlexW4223944451

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.