ArticlePloS one2023
Point-of-care PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 in the emergency department: Influence on workflow and efficiency.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Trends of nucleic acid - based point-of-care diagnostics for infectious diseases.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Review
- Integration of Point-of-Care Technology in the Decoding Process of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism for Healthcare ApplicationMicromachines · 2025Review
- Next-Generation Nucleic Acid-Based Diagnostics for Viral Pathogens: Lessons Learned from the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Impact of Point-of-Care Testing on Diagnosis, Treatment, and Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Viral Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Key Insights into Respiratory Virus Testing: Sensitivity and Clinical Implications.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Impact of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department-to-intensive care unit admissions in Korea: an interrupted time-series analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Understanding theFrontiers in parasitology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
problemRegarding transmissible viral diseases such as those caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the key challenges is isolation management until final diagnosis. This study investigates the influence of SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care (POC) PCR on workflow and efficiency in an emergency department (ED) of a tertiary university hospital.
methodAn analysis of 17,875 ED patients receiving either SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR (rapid PCR, 11,686 patients) or conventional laboratory SARS-CoV-2 PCR (conventional PCR, 6,189 patients) was performed. The pathways for both groups were mapped and compared, and process times from admission to diagnosis were measured. Effects on resource management within the ED were quantified. Direct costs due to isolation, loss of capacities, and revenues were calculated for inpatients.
resultsThe mean time from admission to result was 1.62 h with rapid PCR and 16.08 h with conventional PCR (p < 0.01), reducing the isolation time by 14.46 h. In the first 2 h after testing, test results were available for > 75% of the rapid PCR group and none of the conventional PCR group. Ninety percent of the results were available within 3 h for the rapid PCR and within 21 h for the conventional PCR group. For the conventional PCR group, an increase in direct costs of €35.74 and lost revenues of €421.06 for each inpatient case was detected.
conclusionRapid PCR significantly reduces the time-to-results and time for isolation relative to conventional PCR. Although testing costs for rapid PCR are higher, it benefits workflow, reduces total costs, and frees up ward capacity.
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.