Journal article
The clinical utility of point-of-care tests for influenza in ambulatory care: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Abstract:
-
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.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Version of record, pdf, 1.5MB, Terms of use)
-
(Version of record, zip, 1.6MB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1093/cid/ciy837
Authors
- Funding agency for:
- Lee, J
- Verbakel, J
- Ananthakumar, T
- Hayward, G
- Van Den Bruel, A
- Grant:
- MIC-2016-018
- MIC-2016-018
- MIC-2016-018
- MIC-2016-018
- *Grant Number Example*
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- Journal:
- Clinical Infectious Diseases More from this journal
- Volume:
- 69
- Issue:
- 1
- Pages:
- 24–33
- Publication date:
- 2018-10-04
- Acceptance date:
- 2018-10-03
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1537-6591
- ISSN:
-
1058-4838
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:923313
- UUID:
-
uuid:556adff4-7592-4a3d-a280-5fbf1a2d671f
- Local pid:
-
pubs:923313
- Deposit date:
-
2018-10-03
- ARK identifier:
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Lee, et al
- Copyright date:
- 2018
- Notes:
-
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
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.
- Licence:
- CC Attribution (CC BY)
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record