BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing (PoCT) is increasingly being used in the general practice setting and has the potential to provide improved health outcomes for patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to systematically assess the literature relating to the analytical performance, clinical effectiveness, cost and satisfaction of patients and health professionals with PoCT for monitoring patients with diabetes, with hyperlipidaemia or requiring anticoagulant therapy in general practice. METHODS: Systematic review and synthesis of randomized and quasi-randomized trials during 1966-2007 was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Current Contents, BIDS and the Cochrane Library databases were searched using key terms relating to PoCT for diabetes (glycosylated haemoglobin, urine albumin creatinine ratio), hyperlipidaemia (total cholesterol, triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein) and anticoagulant therapy (international normalized ratio) in the general practice setting. RESULTS: Nine papers from six randomized or quasi-randomized trials were included in the review. Large between-study heterogeneity made pooling of the data inappropriate. In terms of clinical effectiveness, no study found a significant difference between PoCT and pathology laboratory testing. There was a similar lack of data in relation to the analytical performance of PoCT, to cost outcomes and to patient and health professional satisfaction, making conclusions difficult to infer. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review does not provide robust evidence that PoCT in general practice improves patient health outcomes, that it has comparable analytical quality to pathology laboratory testing, that it is cost-effective compared to usual care or that patients and health professionals find PoCT satisfactory. The number of trials is low, the follow-up of patients is short and many of the trials did not investigate PoCT as a separate intervention.
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing (PoCT) is increasingly being used in the general practice setting and has the potential to provide improved health outcomes for patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to systematically assess the literature relating to the analytical performance, clinical effectiveness, cost and satisfaction of patients and health professionals with PoCT for monitoring patients with diabetes, with hyperlipidaemia or requiring anticoagulant therapy in general practice. METHODS: Systematic review and synthesis of randomized and quasi-randomized trials during 1966-2007 was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Current Contents, BIDS and the Cochrane Library databases were searched using key terms relating to PoCT for diabetes (glycosylated haemoglobin, urine albumin creatinine ratio), hyperlipidaemia (total cholesterol, triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein) and anticoagulant therapy (international normalized ratio) in the general practice setting. RESULTS: Nine papers from six randomized or quasi-randomized trials were included in the review. Large between-study heterogeneity made pooling of the data inappropriate. In terms of clinical effectiveness, no study found a significant difference between PoCT and pathology laboratory testing. There was a similar lack of data in relation to the analytical performance of PoCT, to cost outcomes and to patient and health professional satisfaction, making conclusions difficult to infer. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review does not provide robust evidence that PoCT in general practice improves patient health outcomes, that it has comparable analytical quality to pathology laboratory testing, that it is cost-effective compared to usual care or that patients and health professionals find PoCT satisfactory. The number of trials is low, the follow-up of patients is short and many of the trials did not investigate PoCT as a separate intervention.
Authors: Walter Ageno; Alexander S Gallus; Ann Wittkowsky; Mark Crowther; Elaine M Hylek; Gualtiero Palareti Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Mina Hur; Hanah Kim; Chul Min Park; Antonio La Gioia; Sang-Gyu Choi; Ju-Hee Choi; Hee-Won Moon; Yeo-Min Yun Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2012-12-24 Impact factor: 3.411