ArticleNIHR open research2024
Mapping decision-making pathways: Determination of intervention entry points for diagnostic tests in suspected serious infection.
Article in NIHR open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: PROTECT ( Platform Randomised evaluation of clinical Outcomes using novel TEChnologies to optimise antimicrobial Therapy) has brought together a team of researchers to design a platform trial to rapidly evaluate and adopt into care multiple diagnostic technologies, bringing immediate benefit to patients. Rapid diagnostic tests will be used to identify patients at risk of deterioration from severe infection, before they become critically unwell. The platform will assess their comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness relative to current standard of care. Preliminary work, conducted under a Health Technology Assessment Application Acceleration Award, provided key evidence to optimise the design of the PROTECT platform. Methods: Qualitative methods which involved consulting key stakeholders in the field of serious infection addressed the key priorities. A high-level care pathway analysis focusing on serious infection in secondary care, captured the points of contact, actions, decisions, and potential outcomes associated with a patient's care. Results: Two use cases of rapid diagnostic tests for serious infection were identified; (1) in acute emergency medicine to decide on antimicrobial initiation and/or escalation of care, and (2) in hospitalised patients to monitor treatment response. The "ideal" test should be rapid, point-of-care, cheap to procure, have capacity for high usability, and ability to be performed and interpreted by all staff. Facilitators to the adoption of infection diagnostic tests is their clinical need, and the main potential barrier is poor change management and behavioural change. Conclusions: Any new test should provide robust evidence of its clinical effectiveness and have the potential to accelerate ruling in or out serious infection which benefits the clinical pathway for patients, clinicians, and hospitals as a whole, to be considered for adoption as a new standard of care.
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.