Talk:Point-of-care testing

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality

This article only shows benefits and not the disadvantages of POCT. Nobody will deny the benefits in certain situations (ambulant care, no laboratory, limited time, ITC), but all in all POTC is expensive and doesn’t match the quality (sensivity, spezifity) of common laboratory testing. --Polarlys (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the neutrality of this post. The comment makes broad based asertions that are not back up by specific factual references. In order to determine the accuracy of any test there are common laboratory methods that must be followed. To asert that all POC testing suffers from poor quality when compared to routine laboratory testing ignores many facts; principle among them is that many analytes are labile and subject to degradation over time; e.g. lactate. Furthermore, in oreder to determine the accuracy of any tests the user should first perform a comparison of the POC test compared to the established laboratory method usind standard laboratory practice and in compliance with CSLI standards. Package inserts for POC test must contain sensitivity and specificity data that will allow for useful comparison to standard lab tests. (75.69.208.188 (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Steve Pemberton)[reply]

The dispute regarding the neutrality of this post requires additional evidence-based assertions. We agree, like all technologies, there are certainly drawbacks and this article would benefit from a section illustrating POCT drawbacks. However, it is incorrect to assume that "all in all POCT is expensive and doesn't match the quality of common laboratory testing." The statement is incorrect for the following reasons: (1) the cost of many POC tests such as handheld glucose meters, rapid infectious disease tests (e.g., OraSure HIV-1/2 swab, flu tests), home pregnancy tests, and urine drug tests are affordable, often, affordable for community clinics and as recent studies show, in low-resource environments such as rural Thailand and the Aboriginal community in Australia ^[1]; (2) the more important question to ask about a test is value, not cost ^[2]. More "expensive" POCT such as cardiac biomarker assays (e.g., i-STAT, EPOC, etc) provide value by improving outcomes. It is far more costly (mortality and monetarily) to mis-diagnose an acute myocardial infarction than running a $30 (USD) assay at the bedside and getting results within minutes ^[3]. This paradigm is exemplified by the many papers supporting rapid troponin testing as well as POC blood gas testing in the operating room setting; and (3) the performance of POC tests has seen shown improvement in the past decade with several devices becoming comparable to their central laboratory counterpart. In a seperate multicenter study involving glucose meter results compared to central laboratory results, a new glucose meter which autocorrects for hematocrit, oxidizing substances, and oxygen tension was found to perform (statistically) as well as central laboratory systems ^[4]. Interestingly, in the same study, the 28 comparatory laboratory devices were found to have significant inter-instrument variability and bringing into question the performance of these instruments. POCTCTR (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)POCTCTR[reply]

References

^ Shephard et al., Ann Clin Biochem. 2006 Nov;43(Pt 6):513-5.
^ Porter et al. N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2477-81
^ Apple, et al. Clin Chem. 2006 Feb;52(2):322-5
^ Kost et al. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008 Dec;10(6):445-51

History

Is it possible to draw up a section for history of major contributions and contributors to this form of medical testing? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation?

Large parts of this article duplicate content in the PDF

I don't know what to do about it. Also, please teach me the proper manner of reporting. oldrider (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metrics of length of time will become outdated and inaccurate

Statements of length of time need to be adjusted to reflect accurate dates. One sentence refers to the last decade as a metric of time, but it must be taken into consideration the future of the article. If people read this article in 20 years, the last decade will not be an accurate representation of what the article is referring to and will therefore be out of date. Ulrilee (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Ulrilee[reply]

Reorganization and Updating

With a lot of focus on Point of Care testing that has come from the COVID-19 pandemic, this article needs to be reorganized, expanded, and more in-depth to better showcase POCT. The Multiplexed Point of Care testing page has a lot of good information that is broad enough that it should be included and expanded on in this article. All the prior points brought up above should be incorporated (neutrality, history, and metrics). Updated references are also needed seeing as POCT has advanced a lot in recent years which is not reflected in the current article. In addition this article on POCT should cover:

Detection methods & Assays
Sample types & Biomarkers
Metrics of importance & Challenges
Ongoing research/Future Directions

I plan on editing this over the course of the next few weeks.

LulieBella (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Shephard et al., Ann Clin Biochem. 2006 Nov;43(Pt 6):513-5.

[2] Porter et al. N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2477-81

[3] Apple, et al. Clin Chem. 2006 Feb;52(2):322-5

[4] Kost et al. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008 Dec;10(6):445-51

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]