ReviewBMJ open2025
Can we trust published evidence on point-of-care tests for cholesterol? A rapid review.
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.
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.
- Service delivery interventions for lipid testing and lipid-lowering therapy for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Ischemic heart disease burden and healthcare system readiness across sub-Saharan Africa.Nature cardiovascular research · 2026Review
- Integrating non-communicable disease screening to COVID-19 and human immunodeficiency virus care in Johannesburg South Africa: a pilot model for low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.