ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2026
Real-world impact of point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in an ambulatory setting of an integrated health network.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Point-of-care testing (POC) is an important tool for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2. This objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world performance of rapid molecular (rPCR) and rapid antigen (rAg) methods and their impact on antibiotic prescribing. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at outpatient clinics within an integrated health network from December 2021 to March 2023 to determine antibiotic use in settings where POC testing for SARS-CoV-2 were deployed. Patients were included if their initial test was with rPCR or rAg. We conducted a 3:1 propensity score matching analysis to compare rPCR and rAg testing outcomes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of antibiotic use within 24 hours of a positive test. Results: Of 104,364 patients that underwent testing with a rapid test in the ambulatory setting, 24,133 (29.0%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Molecular testing had the highest percent positive compared to antigen testing (26.2% vs 20.8%). Overall, antibiotics were prescribed to 10% of positive cases, with higher rates following rAg testing (13% vs 10%, P < .001). Chronic lung disease (OR: 1.4 [1.2-1.7], P < .001) and white non-Hispanic race (OR: 1.5 [1.1-2.1], P = .014) were associated with an increased odds of receiving antibiotics while a rPCR test (OR: 0.8 [0.7-1.0], P = .03) was associated with a significantly decreased odds or receiving antibiotics. Conclusions: POC molecular testing outperformed antigen testing in SARS-CoV-2 detection and was associated with lower antibiotic prescribing, supporting its role in antimicrobial stewardship.
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.