ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
National survey on availability, use and clinical impact of point-of-care blood analysis systems in Swedish emergency departments.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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.
- Ultrasound guidance versus conventional technique for radial arterial puncture in patients with shock in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Article
- Are you ready? A cross-sectional survey of education, training and learning activities for peacetime crisis and armed conflict preparedness in Swedish emergency departments.BMC emergency medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpedited diagnostic results are important in time sensitive operations like the Emergency Department (ED). Point-of-care testing (POCT) is used for a broad range of blood tests reducing wait times and providing faster decisions on patient management compared to central laboratory analysis. If POCT is to substitute central laboratory analysis as part of the decision making process in the ED, cognizance on the distribution and availability of the required instruments, staff training and workflow integration is essential. The aim of this study was to determine the accessibility of POCT, with particular emphasis on blood gas analysis, in all Swedish EDs and to describe its incorporation into workflow.
methodsThis was an exploratory survey study conducted in 2024 using a digital questionnaire focusing on POCT availability, perceived reliability, sampling, analysis and workflow integration. Descriptive data is reported as percentage, mean with standard deviation. Qualitative data in open-ended questions was analyzed in a descriptive manner and systematically summarized.
resultsAll Swedish EDs (n = 71) responded to our survey. All EDs utilized some kind of POCT with the most prevalent being blood gas, Hb, glucose and CRP. 75% of all EDs had at least one blood gas instrument on site. 44% had guidelines to define indication and usage, 67% replaced certain central laboratory analyses in favor of POCT. ED staff assessed the reliability of results of POCT blood gas analysis as 8 on a 1-10 likert scale (SD 1). All EDs provided staff training on sampling and analysis, but only 30% of EDs had repeated training sessions to avoid misoperation and preanalytical errors. In 32% of reporting EDs, POCT blood gas analysis was performed on more than 30% of patients, mainly triggered by standard operating procedures.
conclusionAll Swedish EDs utilized basic POCT to accelerate patient flow. The majority of Swedish EDs have access to POCT blood gas analysis, the replacement of central laboratory analyses was common. Perceived reliability of POCT blood gas analysis results was considered high, despite the fact that staff training varied substantially. The overall utilization of other POCT remains low - that despite good evidence for cost-effectiveness, reliability and shortened length of stay.
trial registrationClinical trial number: Not applicable.
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.