U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Display Settings:

Items per page

PMC Full-Text Search Results

Items: 6

1.
Figure 6

Figure 6. From: Evidence-based point-of-care tests and device designs for disaster preparedness.

Field testing location. Panel A shows that disaster care respondents (n = 28) ranked patient-side testing higher in pairwise comparison when compared with other testing locations. Panel B shows comparable results for point-of-care respondents (n = 80). ***p < 0.001.

T. Keith Brock, et al. Am J Disaster Med. ;5(5):285-294.
2.
Figure 2

Figure 2. From: Evidence-based point-of-care tests and device designs for disaster preparedness.

Bloodstream pathogen testing priorities. Disaster care respondents (n = 21) ranked methicillin-resist-ant Staphylococcus aureus number one and also ranked this organism higher in pairwise comparison when compared with other pathogens, demarcated on the right: **p < 0.01.

T. Keith Brock, et al. Am J Disaster Med. ;5(5):285-294.
3.
Figure 1

Figure 1. From: Evidence-based point-of-care tests and device designs for disaster preparedness.

Priorities for pathogen testing in disaster settings. Disaster care respondents (n = 24) ranked pathogens in the order displayed in this Pareto plot for disaster settings, and they chose Vibrio cholera higher in statistical pairwise comparisons when compared with other pathogens, demarcated on the right: *p < 0.05.

T. Keith Brock, et al. Am J Disaster Med. ;5(5):285-294.
4.
Figure 5

Figure 5. From: Evidence-based point-of-care tests and device designs for disaster preparedness.

Biohazard waste disposal. Disaster care respondents (n = 28) chose one of the two biohazard waste disposal methods: a device that stores biohazard waste in a reservoir versus a device that stores biohazard waste in a disposable test cassette, and preferred the latter in all three settings, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

T. Keith Brock, et al. Am J Disaster Med. ;5(5):285-294.
5.
Figure 3

Figure 3. From: Evidence-based point-of-care tests and device designs for disaster preparedness.

Emergency blood donor screening. Panel A illustrates that disaster care respondents (n = 24) ranked HIV 1 and 2, Hepatitis B virus, and Hepatitis C virus higher in pairwise comparison when compared with other pathogens, demarcated on the right. Panel B shows that point-of-care respondents (n = 61) also ranked HIV 1 and 2, Hepatitis B virus, and Hepatitis C virus higher in pairwise comparison when compared with other pathogens. Additionally, point-of-care respondents ranked HIV 1 and 2 higher in pairwise comparison when compared with Hepatitis B virus and Hepatitis C virus, as shown on the left: ***p < 0.001 and *p < 0.05.

T. Keith Brock, et al. Am J Disaster Med. ;5(5):285-294.
6.
Figure 4

Figure 4. From: Evidence-based point-of-care tests and device designs for disaster preparedness.

Sample processing. Respondents selected two testing options: tests for multiple pathogens in a single patient sample versus multiple patient samples tested for a single pathogen. Panel A illustrates that disaster care respondents preferred multiplex pathogen testing in urgent care and emergency room settings (n = 26). Panel B shows that point-of-care respondents also preferred multiplex pathogen testing in these same settings (n = 78). ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01.

T. Keith Brock, et al. Am J Disaster Med. ;5(5):285-294.

Display Settings:

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Support Center