ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2026
Quality of Life Changes in Respiratory Infection Trajectory with Point of Care Testing During Clinical Consultation.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluates the impact of a point-of-care (POC) testing strategy and subsequent treatments for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) on patients' health-related quality of life (QoL). Materials and Methods: The PRUDENCE trial, with a sample of 2639 patients, showed that a POC testing strategy for RTIs (C-reactive protein, group A streptococcus, and influenza A/B, with optional SARS-CoV-2 testing) did not reduce antibiotic prescribing nor had a measurable impact on time to patient recovery compared to usual care. However, differences in patient-reported QoL may still exist, as utility can capture more subtle changes in symptom burden and well-being. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire was completed by PRUDENCE trial patients at days 1, 14, and 28 of follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains were estimated. Static and dynamic analyses were performed to assess changes in utility values. Results: No statistically significant differences in utility scores were observed between the usual care and POC testing groups at any time point during the 28-day study period. However, both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements in patient-reported utility scores over the 28-day period, corresponding to gains of 0.00502 QALYs in the usual care group and 0.00525 QALYs in the POC testing group. These improvements were already apparent by day 14 of follow-up. Conclusion: Improvements in utility scores over time were similar in both groups and likely reflected the natural clinical recovery from RTIs rather than the effect of the diagnostic strategy itself. Measures such as symptom relief, full recovery and side effects may better capture the intervention's impact. Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13336322.
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.