Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40921063›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2025

Evaluating the Effect of a Molecular Point-of-Care Test on Acute Respiratory Infections in General Practice: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial.

Kirubakaran Balasubramaniam, Line Maria Simonsen, Line Planck Kongstad, Trine Thilsing, Sonja Wehberg, Jesper Hallas, Liza Sopina, Jesper Bo Nielsen, Gritt Overbeck, Elisabeth Assing Hvidt and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06120153 (A Cluster-randomized Trial of Point-of-care PCR Diagnostics of Respiratory Tract Infections in General Practice), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

NCT06120153 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

A Cluster-randomized Trial of Point-of-care PCR Diagnostics of Respiratory Tract Infections in General Practice

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Southern DenmarkRan2023 to 2026Enrolled5,700ConditionsRespiratory Tract InfectionsArmsPOC PCR-test device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Kirubakaran BalasubramaniamResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3612-1731
Line Maria SimonsenResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0106-4220
Line Planck KongstadDaCHE - Danish Centre for Health Economics, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9625-5870
Trine ThilsingResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2041-2219
Sonja WehbergResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1503-2649
Jesper HallasClinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy and Environmental Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8097-8708
Liza SopinaDaCHE - Danish Centre for Health Economics, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2680-6999
Jesper Bo NielsenResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5764-5462
Gritt OverbeckSection of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1740-1148
Elisabeth Assing HvidtResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3762-8478
Dorte Ejg JarbølResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3241-4190
Tina Lein RasmussenResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0009-2107-5777
Jens SøndergaardResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1629-1864

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute respiratory infections (ARIs) are frequent reasons for medical consultations in general practice and can lead to unnecessary recontacts. Introducing new point-of-care (POC) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic equipment may offer an attractive and efficient way of providing a more precise and exact microbial diagnosis. Successful uptake of POC PCR equipment could potentially lead to a reduction in recontacts with benefits for both staff and patients. However, introducing new diagnostic technology is a complex intervention and several contextual factors may impact the implementation.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the effect of POC PCR test availability in general practice on the subsequent (1) number of recontacts to the general practitioner (GP) for patients with symptoms of ARIs (primary outcome) and (2) hospital admissions, deaths, antibiotic prescriptions, health-related quality of life, GP and patient satisfaction, costs, cost-effectiveness, and contextual facilitators and barriers conditioning the implementation process (secondary outcomes).

methodsThis study is a cluster-randomized, crossover, nonblinded superiority trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio between usual care (control) and POC PCR test availability (intervention). Questionnaire data are collected at day 0, 7, 14, and 28 after the initial contact (health-related quality of life, absenteeism and presentism among patients, and patient satisfaction) and after finalization of the study period (GP satisfaction). Data on recontacts, hospital admissions, redeemed antibiotic prescriptions, costs, and deaths will be retrieved from the Danish national registries. The implementation process will be evaluated based on data from interviews with users of POC PCR tests (i.e., GPs, staff, and patients) and from observations in the clinics in line with Medical Research Council guidelines.

resultsAs per the randomized crossover design carried out during September 2023 to March 2024 investigating a sample of 100 GP clinics, we expect to obtain an in-depth and multifaceted understanding of the effects of the availability of the POC PCR test equipment in general practice.

conclusionsThis study will provide valuable information about the diagnostic conditions and possibilities in general practice and provide insights into the organization of primary health care.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06120153; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06120153. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/72842.

Indexed as

General PracticePoint-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingRespiratory Tract InfectionsAcute DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Over StudiesEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMalePolymerase Chain ReactionQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicacute respiratory infectionsgeneral practicepoint-of-care

Identifiers

PMID40921063
PMCPMC12455145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.