Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40044199›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2025

Can we trust published evidence on point-of-care tests for cholesterol? A rapid review.

Chikomborero Cynthia Mutepfa, Timothy Patrick Hicks, Amanda Winter, Rachel Emma Dickinson, Cameron Williams, Nick Harrison, Joe Chidanyika, Julia L Newton, William Stephen Jones, Jana Suklan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

10 authors.

Chikomborero Cynthia MutepfaNIHR HealthTech Research Centre (HRC) in Diagnostic and Technology Evaluation, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK chiko.mutepfa@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1308-0594
Timothy Patrick HicksNIHR HealthTech Research Centre (HRC) in Diagnostic and Technology Evaluation, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Amanda WinterNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Rachel Emma DickinsonNIHR HealthTech Research Centre (HRC) in Diagnostic and Technology Evaluation, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Cameron WilliamsOPEN Health Group, Marlow, UK.
Nick HarrisonHealth Innovation North East and North Cumbria (NENC), Newcastle, UK.
Joe ChidanyikaHealth Innovation North East and North Cumbria (NENC), Newcastle, UK.
Julia L NewtonHealth Innovation North East and North Cumbria (NENC), Newcastle, UK.
William Stephen JonesFaculty of Science and Engineering, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Jana SuklanNIHR HealthTech Research Centre (HRC) in Diagnostic and Technology Evaluation, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8665-6593

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere is a need to better inform clinicians and decision-makers in primary or community care settings on selecting the appropriate point-of-care tests (POCTs) for screening purposes (as a part of the NHS Health Check Programme). Here we provide an overview of the published analytic validity and diagnostic accuracy studies on POCTs for measuring blood lipids that are available on the UK market to determine whether they meet the accuracy specifications based on the 1995 US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommendations.

designRapid review of analytical validity and diagnostic accuracy studies. DATA SOURCES: On 12 May 2023, Medline and Embase were searched. Google Scholar was manually scrutinised to identify additional studies. Key article reference lists were also hand-searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included analytical validity and diagnostic accuracy studies that compared POCT to laboratory testing (or another POCT) performance for measuring at least total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Identified studies were independently reviewed by two researchers using standardised methods of screening. Where necessary, conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. Title and abstract as well as full texts were screened using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of identified studies was assessed using QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy studies and a modified quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL) for analytical validity studies. We assessed the quality of analytical and diagnostic accuracy studies and compared the accuracy of the POCTs for TC, triglyceride (TG), HDL-C and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) against NCEP standards for mean per cent bias, coefficient of variation or total error. We narratively synthesised analytical and clinical validity evidence from retrieved studies.

resultsThis study examined analytical and diagnostic accuracy evidence for the selected POCTs. Through the review of 22 studies, 6 POCTs were identified. All retrieved studies were analytical validity assessments, while five of them also reported diagnostic accuracy information. The majority of evidence focused on Cholestech LDX, CardioChek PA and Accutrend Plus. Evidence of between and within-study heterogeneity was found. Precision measures often showed systematic differences between the POCT and reference standards. Most devices, except for Elemark, met at least one NCEP standard for either TC, TG, HDL-C, or LDL-C.

conclusionsWe found that evidence for two of the devices mostly met the requirements of the NCEP standard of evidence for bias and precision and could be recommended to general practitioners to use in the NHS Health Check programme. These were the Cholestech LDX and the Cobas b101 system.

Indexed as

CholesterolPoint-of-Care TestingCholesterol, HDLHumansMass ScreeningReproducibility of ResultsUnited KingdomCholesterolCholesterol, HDLCARDIOLOGYLipid disordersMass ScreeningPREVENTIVE MEDICINEPrimary Prevention

Identifiers

PMID40044199
PMCPMC11883607

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.