ArticleBMJ open2026
Priorities for the development of a new rapid diagnostic test for patients with fever: a cross-sectional online survey among hospital physicians across Europe.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to understand hospital doctors' priorities (target use cases and aetiologies) for the development of a new rapid diagnostic test for patients with fever.
designA cross-sectional online survey.
settingEurope-wide.
participantsSecondary and tertiary care doctors involved in patient assessment and diagnosis across Europe.
interventionOnline survey from April to September 2024.
main outcome measuresImportance of developing a new test on a scale of 1-10 for up to 19 'use cases' (types of febrile presentations in specific demographic groups): use case scores and ranks and differences across subgroups of respondents, with free text to capture additional suggestions; respondents' preferences (multiple choice) regarding which aetiologies should be included in a new test.
results265 respondents from 30 European countries (out of 270 starting the survey) were included in the analysis. Top priorities included febrile immunocompromised patients and fever without a focus for both paediatric and adult use cases, and 1-3 months old febrile infants. Rankings were similar across clinician subgroups despite some differences in average scores. 92% (243/263), 95% CI 89% to 95%, of respondents would find a 'generic' test for bacterial aetiology useful, even if it does not differentiate between Gram-positive and Gram-negative aetiologies. 54% (63/116), 95% CI 45% to 63%, of respondents would find a 'generic' test for inflammatory aetiology useful when seeking to diagnose children for whom Kawasaki's disease (KD) is on the differential, even in the absence of any KD-specific test, 83% (96/116), 95% CI 75% to 89%, would find such a 'generic' test useful if they could use it alongside a KD test when desired.
conclusionClinicians prioritise the most vulnerable patients (because of age or comorbidities) and unclear presentations (fever without a focus) for the development of a new fever diagnostic test. Even relatively simple (eg, bacterial, inflammatory) tests could provide added value to most clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.