SynthesisBMJ open2026
Acceptability of capillary point-of-care testing: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify and synthesise evidence on the acceptability and perceived experience of finger-prick point-of-care testing (POCT) among patients and clinicians across healthcare settings.
designSystematic review conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2024 and re-run in July 2025, supplemented by citation tracking of relevant studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting patient and clinicians' experiences, perceptions, satisfaction or acceptability relating to finger-prick POCT for any health condition or blood parameter were eligible. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods designs were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and synthesised using thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. Methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool.
results21 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 9128 participants (17 quantitative, 3 qualitative, 1 mixed methods). Across diverse clinical contexts, finger-prick POCT was reported as generally acceptable, less distressing and perceived as a convenient alternative to venous sampling in comparative studies. Thematic synthesis identified two major themes: (1) enhancing the patient-clinician relationship through improved engagement, communication and understanding of care and (2) clinical implications of finger-prick POCT on clinicians' workflow, confidence and skill acquisition. Finger-prick POCT was perceived to promote personalised consultations, enable immediate discussion of results and streamline decision-making. Clinicians highlighted its potential to expand task sharing, improve efficiency and strengthen continuity of care, although concerns regarding training, reliability and quality assurance were identified.
conclusionsFinger-prick POCT is generally acceptable to patients and clinicians, improving comfort, convenience, engagement and perceived efficiency. Implementation should prioritise training, infrastructure and quality assurance frameworks to maximise clinical and experiential benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024512130.
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.