Point of care testing
Abstract
Point of care testing, otherwise referred to as near patient, bedside, or extra laboratory testing, is not new. Many of the early “diagnostic tests” were first done at the bedside—for example, urine testing. Over the past few years, however, analytical systems have been developed that enable a wide range of tests to be done quickly and simply without the need for sophisticated laboratory equipment.1 The key objective of point of care testing is to generate a result quickly so that appropriate treatment can be implemented, leading to an improved clinical or economic outcome (figure). This article sets out the requirements for delivering an effective point of care testing service and reviews the evidence of the clinical and economic effectiveness of point of care testing. #### Summary points Point of care testing requires trained operators to ensure a good quality service Testing is effective only if action taken on the result Testing has been shown to reduce hospital stay, improve adherence to treatment, and reduce complications Although point of care testing is more expensive than laboratory testing, it produces wider economic benefits I searched the literature with Medline and Embase using the key phrases “point of care testing,” “bedside testing,” “near patient testing,” and “extra laboratory testing.” I also hand searched relevant laboratory medicine and disease related journals (such as those on diabetes) and health technology assessment reports. Two broad types of technology support point of care testing: small bench top analysers (for example, blood gas and electrolyte systems) and hand held, single use devices (such as urine albumin, blood glucose, and coagulation tests). The bench top systems are smaller versions of laboratory analysers in which vulnerable operator dependent steps have been automated—for example, automatic flushing of sample after analysis, calibration, and quality control. Hand held devices have been developed using microfabrication techniques. …
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
POCT has emerged as a central component in modern emergency diagnostics primarily due to its rapid turnaround time and ability to provide near-immediate data.
“Point-of-care testing (POCT) has emerged as a central component in modern emergency diagnostics, primarily due to its rapid turnaround time (TAT) and its ability to provide near-immediate data to guide time-sensitive interventions [2].”
From Reliability of Point-of-Care Venous Blood Gas Testing for Potassium and Sodium Compared to Central Laboratory Results in Emergency Patients: A Clinical Audit (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
The opening section says POCT aims to generate results quickly so appropriate treatment can be implemented, and the “Accident and emergency” section says it has potential to speed decisions and triage. But that section does not establish POCT as a central component of emergency diagnostics; it says the main emergency studies found little clinical benefit compared with laboratory testing. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Florkowski, C., Don-Wauchope, A., Gimenez, N., Rodriguez-Capote, K., Wils, J., & Zemlin, A. (2017) · Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences · doi:10.1080/10408363.2017.1399336 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
A systematic evaluation of immunoassay point-of-care testing to define impact on patients’ outcomes
Pecoraro, V., Banfi, G., Germagnoli, L., & Trenti, T. (2017) · Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1177/0004563217694377 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Kim, Y., Park, S., Kim, M.-H., Song, S. H., Lee, W. M., Kim, H. S., Jin, K., Han, S., Kim, Y. C., Han, S. S., et al. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227694 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Lasfer, C., Lahib, A., Soliman, K., & Gouda, S. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.89106
“Point-of-care testing (POCT) has emerged as a central component in modern emergency diagnostics, primarily due to its rapid turnaround time (TAT) and its ability to provide near-immediate data to guide time-sensitive interventions [2].”
- Authors
- Price, C. P.
- Affiliations
- Barts Health NHS Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Price, Christopher P
- ORCID
- Price, Christopher P
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-05-26
- Volume
- 322
- Issue
- 7297
- Pages
- 1285-1288
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1587531589
- Cited by
- 368
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 2.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biosensors and Analytical Detection
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Keywords
- point-of-care testing, clinical effectiveness, economic effectiveness, length of hospital stay, medication adherence, complications, blood glucose monitoring, coagulation tests, operator training, quality control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review