ArticleHealth services insights2025
The Potential Impact of Primary Care-Based Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Point of Care Testing for Viral Acute Respiratory Infections in the UK: Modified Delphi Study.
Article in Health services insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for viral acute respiratory infections (ARI) at the Point of Care (POC) has demonstrated clinical and economic value in secondary care, yet its impact in primary care remains uncertain. United Kingdom (UK) guidelines make conflicting recommendations on the use of testing in primary care settings. Objectives: This study provides expert consensus on the potential clinical and economic implications of rapid PCR testing at the POC in primary care settings. Design: A modified Delphi consensus panel approach was employed, with consensus statements developed from existing literature and evaluated through two rounds of questionnaires. Open-ended questions were posed to explore potential barriers to implementation, evidence generation, and suitable settings for testing. Methods: A multistakeholder panel of 9 experts was purposely recruited, representing stakeholders from seven areas. A narrative literature review was conducted to generate consensus on the potential value of implementing rapid PCR testing at the POC for ARIs in primary care settings. Two Delphi rounds were completed, with participants rating their level of agreement with presented statements on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. Results: Seventeen statements were generated based on the results of a narrative literature review, with eight achieving consensus and further evidence generation recommendations developed for six statements. Two statements were removed due to non-agreement and two were merged into a single statement, which later achieved consensus. The lack of cost and clinical effectiveness data was ranked as the greatest barrier to implementation. Primary care settings with high and low risk patients, such as general practices and care homes, were considered ideal for implementation. Conclusion: There is potential value in rapid multiplex viral PCR testing for ARIs in primary care settings and care homes. While existing evidence and expert consensus indicate a likely benefit, further real-world evidence trials are recommended to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach.
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.