Background Point-of-care testing (POCT) has numerous potential benefits to improve health care service, especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to identify which POC-tests (POCTs) of laboratory parameters are known, employed, and rated as useful by general practitioners (GPs). Methods A questionnaire with 27 POCTs was posted to a random selection of GPs (n = 451) in Saxony, Germany. Results A total of 208 GPs replied (response rate 46.1%). Out of 27 POCTs, each GP knew an average of 20.3 as laboratory parameters and 9.2 as POCTs. Urine test strips (99.0%), blood glucose test (98.1%), and Troponin I/T (86.4%) were the best-known, followed by INR/Quick (82.5%), Microalbumin (79.1%), and D-dimer (78.6%) POCTs. Yet, solely 0 to 13 POC tests were actually used (mean value 4.6). Urine test strips were employed most frequently (97.6%), followed by blood glucose test (94.7%), Troponin I/T (57.8%), Microalbumin (57.3%), and INR/Quick POCTs (41.7%). Heart fatty binding protein (H-FABP), Syphilis, Coeliac disease, and Malaria appeared as the least frequently used POCTs. The majority of the GPs declared 14 of the 27 POCTs to be useful. Discussion/conclusion The most recurrently employed POCTs are those for diagnosing or monitoring diabetes mellitus, ensued by POCTs addressing acute cardiovascular diseases (Troponin I/T, D-dimer) or monitoring the therapy of infectious diseases or the anticoagulant therapy. POCTs most often rated as useful by GPs are also widely known and frequently used. Nonetheless, the majority of GPs rate only a very limited number of POCTs as useful. Frequent concerns might be low economic benefit, over-reliance, and test accuracy coming along with the complex implementation of the tests requiring technical skills, accurate storage, and the correct interpretation of test results. Trial registration In accordance with the (Model) Professional Code for Physicians in Germany, neither human body materials nor data that can be assigned to a specific human being are used in our study. A declaration of no objection from the Ethics Committee of the Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Medical Faculty) confirms no professional or ethical concerns due to completely anonymized data collection and analysis. Our study was therefore not registered in a corresponding registry.

ObjectivesThe epidemiological transition from infectious to chronic diseases leads to novel challenges in African health systems. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasing dramatically. Undiagnosed and undertreated DM leads to numerous complications including end-organ damage and death. Our objectives were to collect the best locally generated evidence on DM interventions, identify knowledge gaps and determine underexplored research areas.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Participants and settingAfrican patients in primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, diagnosis and treatment DM type 1 (DM1), type 2 (DM2) and gestational DM (GDM).OutcomeAll-cause mortality, glycaemic control, complications, quality of life, hospital admission, treatment adherence and costs.Data sourcesArticles published in MEDLINE Ovid, CENTRAL, CINAHL, African Journals Online and African Index Medicus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in English language without time restrictions. The systematic search was last updated in October 2020.ResultsOut of 3736 identified publications, we included 60 eligible studies conducted in 15 countries, 75% were conducted in urban healthcare settings, including 10 112 participants. We included 8 studies on DM1, 6 on GDM, 2 on pre-DM, 37 on mainly DM2 including 7 on DM-related complications. The design of the studied intervention was heterogeneous with a focus on educational strategies. The other studies investigated the efficacy of nutritional strategies including food supplementations, pharmacological strategies and strategies to enhance physical activity. Seven studies included interventions on DM-related complications.ConclusionsResearch activities increased in recent years, but available evidence is still not representative for all African countries. There is a big lack of evidence in primary healthcare and rural settings, implementation research, pharmacological interventions, especially in poorer countries. Nevertheless, the identified studies offer a variety of effective interventions that can inform medical care and future research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019122785.