Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025
Rapid microbiological respiratory point-of-care testing: a qualitative study with primary care clinicians.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Respiratory Microbiological Point-of-Care Testing and Antibiotic Use in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Patient perceptions of primary care rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care testing: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Trial
- Views of Spanish primary care professionals on respiratory tract infection testing: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid microbiological point-of-care tests (RM POCTs) present an opportunity to reduce antibiotic exposure and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). So far, there is limited understanding of how RM POCTs may support clinicians in primary care in the UK and how RM POCTs might be integrated into practice.
aimTo investigate clinicians' views on how RM POCTs can influence clinical decisions and routine practice, and perspectives on how RM POCTs can impact the clinician-patient relationship. DESIGN AND
settingA qualitative study was undertaken. The study was embedded in a multi-centre, individually randomised controlled efficacy trial, which evaluated the use of a multiplex RM POCT for suspected respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care.
methodIndividual interviews were conducted with 18 clinicians (GPs,
resultsRM POCTs can guide prescribing decisions when clinicians experience diagnostic uncertainty and support communication with patients to reinforce prescribing decisions. Consequently, the perceived value of, and use of, RM POCTs varied according to clinicians' confidence in making prescribing decisions and managing patient expectations and their clinical roles. The costly and time-consuming nature of RM POCTs meant that integration of the tests into routine practice was considered unlikely at present.
conclusionThe findings from this study highlight the potential benefits and challenges of integrating RM POCTs into routine practice. Clinicians in this study had generally favourable views towards RM POCTs. However, further RM POCT training, complementary strategies, such as communication skills training and patient education, and clear guidance on implementation should be explored to optimise RM POCT feasibility and outcomes across different primary care settings.
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.