Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37720479›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023

Beyond accuracy: leveraging ASSURED criteria for field evaluation of point-of-care tests for food animal diseases.

Sylvester Ochwo, Andres M Perez, María Sol Pérez Aguirreburualde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

3 authors.

Sylvester OchwoCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
Andres M PerezCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
María Sol Pérez AguirreburualdeCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing availability of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for food-animal diseases offers opportunities for timely diagnosis, facilitating the efficient implementation of control measures. However, field assessment of new POCTs are yet to be standardized. This paper discusses the opportunity of expanding the current approach for the evaluation and validation of POCTs in food animal disease diagnosis, highlighting the limitations of traditional practice that primarily relies on estimating diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Here, the use of a protocol referred to as FIT-REASSURED, a modified framework combining the ASSURED and REASSURED criteria, is proposed to comprehensively assess POCTs. FIT-REASSURED encompasses key criteria such as fitness for purpose, real-time connectivity, ease of specimen collection, affordability, sensitivity, specificity, user-friendliness, rapidity and robustness, equipment-free operation, and deliverability. By incorporating these attributes, FIT-REASSURED provides a customizable approach to assess the accuracy, affordability, and utility of POCTs. Through collaborative efforts among stakeholders, the implementation of a standardized scorecard based on these FIT-REASSURED criteria can improve the reliability and practicality of POCTs in food-animal health.

Indexed as

animal healthfield evaluationFIT-REASSUREDmodified frameworkpoint-of-care tests

Identifiers

PMID37720479
PMCPMC10500061

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.