Development of the Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool (POCKET): a checklist for multi-dimensional evidence generation in point-of-care tests.
checklist
diagnostic equipment
diagnostic test approval
point-of-care testing
Journal
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
ISSN: 1437-4331
Titre abrégé: Clin Chem Lab Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9806306
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 05 2019
27 05 2019
Historique:
received:
07
10
2018
accepted:
10
10
2018
pubmed:
10
11
2018
medline:
17
1
2020
entrez:
10
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background This study aimed to develop the Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool (POCKET); a multi-dimensional checklist to guide the evaluation of point-of-care tests (POCTs) incorporating validity, utility, usability, cost-effectiveness and patient experience. The motivation for this was to improve the efficiency of evidence generation in POCTs and reduce the lead-time for the adoption of novel POCTs. Methods A mixed qualitative and quantitative approach was applied. Following a literature search, a three round Delphi process was undertaken incorporating a semi-structured interview study and two questionnaire rounds. Participants included clinicians, laboratory personnel, commissioners, regulators (including members of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] committees), patients, industry representatives and methodologists. Qualitative data were analysed based on grounded theory. The final tool was revised at an expert stakeholder workshop. Results Forty-three participants were interviewed within the semi-structured interview study, 32 participated in the questionnaire rounds and nine stakeholders attended the expert workshop. The final version of the POCKET checklist contains 65 different evidence requirements grouped into seven themes. Face validity, content validity and usability has been demonstrated. There exists a shortfall in the evidence that industry and research methodologists believe should be generated regarding POCTs and what is actually required by policy and decision makers to promote implementation into current healthcare pathways. Conclusions This study has led to the development of POCKET, a checklist for evidence generation and synthesis in POCTs. This aims to guide industry and researchers to the evidence that is required by decision makers to facilitate POCT adoption so that the benefits they can bring to patients can be effectively realised.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30412463
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2018-1089
pii: cclm-2018-1089
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
845-855Références
Huddy JR, Ni MZ, Markar SR, Hanna GB. Point-of-care testing in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancers: current technology and future directions. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:4111–20.
Price CP. Point of care testing. Br Med J 2001;322:1285–8.
Global Point-of-Care Diagnostics Market Outlook. 2018. http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2848147/global-point-of-care-diagnostics-market-outlook. Accessed: 24 Apr 2015.
Lijmer JG, Leeflang M, Bossuyt PM. Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Making 2009;29:E13–21.
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:189–202.
NIHR Medtech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operatives (MICs). https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/how-we-are-managed/our-structure/infrastructure/Documents/medtech-and-in-vitro-diagnostic-co-operatives.htm. Accessed: 11 Sep 2018.
European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group: Test Evaluation. https://www.eflm.eu/site/page/a/1158. Accessed: 11 Sep 2018.
Bossuyt PM. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Chem 2003;49:1–6.
Monaghan PJ, Robinson S, Rajdl D, Bossuyt PM, Sandberg S, St John A, et al. Practical guide for identifying unmet clinical need for biomarkers. EJIFCC 2018;29:129–37.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Br Med J 2013;346:f1049.
International Organization for Standardization. IEC 62366-1:2015 Medical devices – application of usability engineering to medical devices. https://www.iso.org/standard/63179.html. Accessed: 11 Sep 2018.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Diagnostics Assessment Programme manual. 2011.
Huddy JR, Ni M, Mavroveli S, Barlow J, Williams D-A, Hanna GB. A research protocol for developing a Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool ‘POCKET’: a checklist for multidimensional evidence reporting on point-of-care in vitro diagnostics. BMJ Open 2015;5.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9241-11. Ergonomics of human-system interaction. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en. Accessed: 11 Sept 2018.
Finstad K. Interacting with computers the usability metric for user experience. Interact Comput 2010;22:323–7.