ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2022
Point-of-Care Tests' Role in Time Metrics of Urgent Interventions in Emergency Department; a Systematic Review of Literature.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Position Statement on In-hospital/Clinic Point-of-care Coagulation Testing for Anticoagulation Monitoring in Saudi Arabia.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) could be helpful in clinical decisions, treatment selection, monitoring, prognostication, operational decision-making, and resource utilization. This study aimed to review the role of POCT in time metrics of performing urgent interventions in the emergency department (ED) or disposition time to proper care. Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature based on the PRISMA statement. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies reporting the application of the POCT in the ED with outcomes of the time to intervention or disposition. Results: After reviewing 3708 articles, 16 studies with 100,224 participants were included in this systematic review. There were 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 5 retrospective cohorts, 2 prospective cohorts, and 4 before-after studies. All studies were performed in an ED setting except for one study of prehospital EMS air medical transport. Different panels, ultrasound, cardiac parameters, echocardiography, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) POCTs were used in the studies. Regarding the outcome measures, studies with many types of patients referring to ED used different indices of time to intervention or time to disposition. Studies on different shock circumstances used the time to the first bolus of hydration or vasopressor or intravenous antibiotics for septic shock patients and central venous catheterization (CVC) placement time in one study. Time to imaging was considered as the outcome in some studies. Overall, there was a high risk of bias, especially in case of the randomization methods, and non-blinded designs in RCTs. There was lower possibility of bias in non-randomized studies but the studies did not have enough follow-ups and in case of studies using advanced panels of POCT, results do not seem to be easily applicable to public health care in many countries. Conclusion: In synthesis of the evidence, all included studies were reporting the benefits of the POCT in decreasing the time to proper interventions and increasing the time to negative interventions in the last lines of critical care as well as the intubation and CVC placement.
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.