Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Jun 18;69(1):24-33.
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy837.

The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Joseph Jonathan Lee  1 , Jan Y Verbakel  1   2 , Clare Rosemary Goyder  1 , Thanusha Ananthakumar  1 , Pui San Tan  1 , Phillip James Turner  1 , Gail Hayward  1 , Ann Van den Bruel  1   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Joseph Jonathan Lee et al. Clin Infect Dis. .

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.

Keywords: diagnostics; influenza.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flowchart of included and excluded papers. Abbreviations: POCTs, point-of-care tests; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT, randomized, controlled trials.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Risk of bias summary for included studies.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Antibiotic prescribing. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; POCT, point-of-care test; RCT, randomized, controlled trial.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Routine bloods or full blood count. Forest plot of meta-analyses of randomized and observational studies reporting full blood counts or routine bloods comparing POCT vs usual care. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; POCT, point-of-care test; RCT, randomized, controlled trial.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Chest radiography. Forest plot of meta-analyses of randomized and observational studies reporting chest radiography comparing POCT vs usual care. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; POCT, point-of-care test; RCT, randomized, controlled trial.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization. WHO public health research agenda for influenza. Public Health 2009; 1:1–18.
    1. Iuliano AD, Roguski KM, Chang HH, et al. ; Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study. Lancet 2018; 391:1285–300. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Xue Y, Kristiansen IS, De Blasio BF. Modeling the cost of influenza: the impact of missing costs of unreported complications and sick leave. BMC Public Health 2010; 10:724–35. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ambrose CS, Antonova EN. The healthcare and societal burden associated with influenza in vaccinated and unvaccinated European and Israeli children. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 33:569–75. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pitman RJ, Melegaro A, Gelb D, Siddiqui MR, Gay NJ, Edmunds WJ. Assessing the burden of influenza and other respiratory infections in England and Wales. J Infect 2007; 54:530–38. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances