ReviewHealth science reports2026
Acceptability of Cardiovascular Disease Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Primary Care Settings: A Scoping Review.
Review in Health science reports, 2026. 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 and Aims: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading global cause of death, with 80% of deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Improving access to screening and early diagnosis is essential. Point-of-care testing (POCT), which provides rapid results near the patient, is particularly valuable in resource-limited settings. While POCT has been successfully implemented for infectious diseases like HIV and TB, investment in CVD-focused POCT remains limited. This scoping review maps global evidence on the acceptability of CVD POCT, guided by the World Health Organization's REASSURED criteria, to inform future implementation strategies. Methodology: This review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost databases. A preliminary search confirmed feasibility. Two reviewers independently screened studies at all stages, with agreement assessed statistically. The quality of included studies was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Results: Out of 738 articles identified, 13 primary studies conducted in primary care settings were included. Themes emerging from the review included POCT availability, influence on triage and clinical decision-making, ease of use, sample volume, and feasibility. Only two studies were randomized controlled trials; the rest were observational, mostly comparing POCT accuracy to central laboratory testing. Inter-reviewer agreement was high (Kappa = 0.92), and MMAT scores ranged from 71.4% to 85.7%. Conclusions: CVD POCTs are generally acceptable and demonstrate strong potential for clinical integration. However, a lack of robust evidence on patient outcomes, particularly from LMICs, limits the establishment of their effectiveness. More randomized controlled trials and economic evaluations in LMICs, where the burden of CVD is highest, are needed to support broader implementation and inform global strategies to reduce the impact of CVD.
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.