Cargando…
The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for influenza are diagnostically superior to clinical diagnosis, but their impact on patient outcomes is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review of influenza POCTs versus usual care in ambulatory care settings. Studies were identified by searching six databases...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579962/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30285232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy837 |
_version_ | 1783427939658891264 |
---|---|
author | Lee, Joseph Jonathan Verbakel, Jan Y Goyder, Clare Rosemary Ananthakumar, Thanusha Tan, Pui San Turner, Phillip James Hayward, Gail Van den Bruel, Ann |
author_facet | Lee, Joseph Jonathan Verbakel, Jan Y Goyder, Clare Rosemary Ananthakumar, Thanusha Tan, Pui San Turner, Phillip James Hayward, Gail Van den Bruel, Ann |
author_sort | Lee, Joseph Jonathan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for influenza are diagnostically superior to clinical diagnosis, but their impact on patient outcomes is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review of influenza POCTs versus usual care in ambulatory care settings. Studies were identified by searching six databases and assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Estimates of risk ratios (RR), standardised mean differences, 95% confidence intervals and I2 were obtained by random effects meta-analyses. We explored heterogeneity with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: 12,928 citations were screened. Seven randomized studies (n = 4,324) and six non-randomized studies (n = 4,774) were included. Most evidence came from paediatric emergency departments. Risk of bias was moderate in randomized studies and higher in non-randomized studies. In randomized trials, POCTs had no effect on admissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61–1.42, I2 = 34%), returning for care (RR 1.00 95% CI = 0.77–1.29, I2 = 7%), or antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82–1.15, I2 = 70%), but increased prescribing of antivirals (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.95–3.60; I2 = 0%). Further testing was reduced for full blood counts (FBC) (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69–0.92 I2 = 0%), blood cultures (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68–0.99; I2 = 0%) and chest radiography (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.96; I2 = 32%), but not urinalysis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78–w1.07; I2 = 20%). Time in the emergency department was not changed. Fewer non-randomized studies reported these outcomes, with some findings reversed or attenuated (fewer antibiotic prescriptions and less urinalysis in tested patients). CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care testing for influenza influences prescribing and testing decisions, particularly for children in emergency departments. Observational evidence shows challenges for real-world implementation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6579962 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65799622019-06-20 The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Lee, Joseph Jonathan Verbakel, Jan Y Goyder, Clare Rosemary Ananthakumar, Thanusha Tan, Pui San Turner, Phillip James Hayward, Gail Van den Bruel, Ann Clin Infect Dis Articles and Commentaries BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for influenza are diagnostically superior to clinical diagnosis, but their impact on patient outcomes is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review of influenza POCTs versus usual care in ambulatory care settings. Studies were identified by searching six databases and assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Estimates of risk ratios (RR), standardised mean differences, 95% confidence intervals and I2 were obtained by random effects meta-analyses. We explored heterogeneity with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: 12,928 citations were screened. Seven randomized studies (n = 4,324) and six non-randomized studies (n = 4,774) were included. Most evidence came from paediatric emergency departments. Risk of bias was moderate in randomized studies and higher in non-randomized studies. In randomized trials, POCTs had no effect on admissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61–1.42, I2 = 34%), returning for care (RR 1.00 95% CI = 0.77–1.29, I2 = 7%), or antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82–1.15, I2 = 70%), but increased prescribing of antivirals (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.95–3.60; I2 = 0%). Further testing was reduced for full blood counts (FBC) (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69–0.92 I2 = 0%), blood cultures (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68–0.99; I2 = 0%) and chest radiography (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.96; I2 = 32%), but not urinalysis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78–w1.07; I2 = 20%). Time in the emergency department was not changed. Fewer non-randomized studies reported these outcomes, with some findings reversed or attenuated (fewer antibiotic prescriptions and less urinalysis in tested patients). CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care testing for influenza influences prescribing and testing decisions, particularly for children in emergency departments. Observational evidence shows challenges for real-world implementation. Oxford University Press 2019-07-01 2018-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6579962/ /pubmed/30285232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy837 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Articles and Commentaries Lee, Joseph Jonathan Verbakel, Jan Y Goyder, Clare Rosemary Ananthakumar, Thanusha Tan, Pui San Turner, Phillip James Hayward, Gail Van den Bruel, Ann The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title | The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_full | The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_short | The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_sort | clinical utility of point-of-care tests for influenza in ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Articles and Commentaries |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579962/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30285232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy837 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leejosephjonathan theclinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT verbakeljany theclinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT goyderclarerosemary theclinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ananthakumarthanusha theclinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tanpuisan theclinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT turnerphillipjames theclinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT haywardgail theclinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT vandenbruelann theclinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT leejosephjonathan clinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT verbakeljany clinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT goyderclarerosemary clinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ananthakumarthanusha clinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tanpuisan clinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT turnerphillipjames clinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT haywardgail clinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT vandenbruelann clinicalutilityofpointofcaretestsforinfluenzainambulatorycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |