ArticleBMC pediatrics2012
Impact of C-reactive protein test results on evidence-based decision-making in cases of bacterial infection.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lactate to creatinine ratio: just another biomarker?Pediatric research · 2026Review
- Deep learning-based prediction of Clostridioides difficile infection caused by antibiotics using longitudinal electronic health records.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Noninfectious influencers of early-onset sepsis biomarkers.Pediatric research · 2022Review
- Antibiotic stewardship in NICU: De-implementing routine CRP to reduce antibiotic usage in neonates at risk for early-onset sepsis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Article
- Blood Procalcitonin Level as a Diagnostic Marker of Pediatric Bacterial Meningitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The radiological diagnosis of pneumonia in children.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundC-reactive protein (CRP) is widely used to detect bacterial infection in children. We investigated the impact of CRP test results on decision-making and summarized the evidence base (EB) of CRP testing.
methodsWe collected information from the hospital records of 91 neonates with suspected sepsis and of 152 febrile children with suspected infection on the number of ordered CRP tests, the number of EB-CRP tests, and the impact of the test results on decision-making. CRP diagnostic accuracy studies focusing on pediatric infections were reviewed critically. The main outcomes were the proportion of CRP tests that were EB and the proportion of tests that affected decision-making. A secondary outcome was the overall one-year expenditure on CRP testing.
resultsThe current EB for CRP testing in pediatric infections is weak and suggests that CRP is of low diagnostic value. Approximately 54.8% of tests performed for suspected neonatal sepsis and 28% of tests performed for other infections were EB; however, the results of only 12.9% of neonatal sepsis tests and of 29.9% of tests on children with other infections informed decision-making. The one-year overall cost for CRP testing and related health care was $26,715.9.
conclusionsThe routine ordering of CRP for children with infections is based on weak evidence. The impact of the CRP test results on decision-making is rather small, and CRP ordering may contribute to unnecessary health care expenditures. Better quality research is needed to definitively determine the diagnostic accuracy of CRP levels in children with infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.