ReviewEmergency medicine international2025
Analytical and Clinical Performance of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Point-of-Care Assays as an Aid in the Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction: A Narrative Review.
Review in Emergency medicine international, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) poses a significant burden worldwide; however, the development of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays has greatly improved patient management by enabling the detection of very low levels of troponin. The objective of this review was to identify current hs-cTn point-of-care (POC) assays, describe their key features, and discuss their analytical and clinical performance. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, as well as relevant web sources, were searched for publications up to April 10, 2025. The references included describe the main characteristics of POC hs-cTn assays and their companion instruments, as well as studies assessing their analytical or clinical performance in the context of acute myocardial infarction diagnosis. Results: In addition to information publicly available from the web, 27 publications were considered relevant for this review. From the retrieved sources, seven POC hs-cTn assays were identified as currently cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration or CE-marked. Four additional POC hs-cTn assays, each evaluated for analytical or clinical performance, were identified as currently or previously under development. POC instruments differ in their key characteristics, many of which are crucial for ensuring their suitability in specific clinical settings and intended applications. Despite some variability in performance across different platforms, they are generally consistent with the high-sensitivity profile expected of cTn assays. Clinical performance indicators for hs-cTn assays align with European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations, particularly when ESC-recommended diagnostic algorithms are applied. Reported sensitivity and negative predictive values exceed 99%, while positive predictive values are above 70%. Moreover, comparative studies of POC hs-cTn assays and laboratory-based hs-cTn tests have demonstrated no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for ruling in or ruling out acute myocardial infarction. Conclusion: POC hs-cTn assays represent a promising alternative to traditional laboratory testing, providing similar analytical and clinical performance while enabling faster diagnosis and management of ACS. Expanded use of hs-cTn assays in clinical practice could transform patient care pathways, especially in time-critical situations. Continued research and ongoing technological advancements are critical to ensure optimal use and widespread adoption in routine clinical settings.
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.