ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Operational Validity in Decentralized Molecular Point-of-Care Diagnostics: A Human Factors Engineering Perspective.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Species-Level Reconfiguration and Retrospective Bridging Assessment of a Multiplex PCR Panel for Complicated and Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid expansion of molecular point-of-care (POC) diagnostics into decentralized settings, including emergency departments, retail pharmacies, and home environments, has shifted the burden of diagnostic performance from laboratory professionals to heterogeneous, often non-expert users. While traditional evaluation frameworks focus on analytical and clinical validity, they often overlook the impact of human-system interactions on real-world reliability. This review introduces the concept of Operational Validity: the ability of a diagnostic system to preserve its intended performance when operated by intended users within the constraints of real-world workflows and environments. To establish a rigorous foundation for this concept, this study provides a critical comparative analysis contrasting Operational Validity against traditional clinical evaluation dimensions (analytical validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility) and post-market metrics. While existing literature outlines isolated usability principles, the significance of this study lies in its synthesis of these fragmented concepts into a formalized, lifecycle-based "Operational Validity" framework that explicitly maps the causal mechanisms connecting initial user interaction directly to downstream clinical outcomes. By synthesizing international standards (IEC 62366-1) alongside the newly finalized May 2026 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on the Content of Human Factors Information in Medical Device Marketing Submissions, we examine how human factors engineering (HFE) and usability engineering serve as the methodological foundation for operational validity. We analyze the specific complexities of molecular workflows, identify key parameters of use-related failure modes in pre-analytical and interpretation stages, and detail the mandatory role of iterative formative and final summative usability testing in mitigating these risks. Finally, we propose a lifecycle-based approach to HFE that integrates design, simulated-use validation, and post-market surveillance. Establishing operational validity is essential to ensure that the high analytical sensitivity of molecular POC platforms translates into consistent clinical utility across the full spectrum of decentralized care.
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.