SynthesisMedicine2015
C-reactive protein and white blood cell count as triage test between urgent and nonurgent conditions in 2961 patients with acute abdominal pain.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of the prognostic biomarker suPAR in the emergency department improves risk stratification but has no effect on mortality: a cluster-randomized clinical trial (TRIAGE III).Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2018Trial
- Imaging of appendicitis: Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound in diagnosis and management.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025Review
- Episodic Abdominal Pain-An Unexpected Cause for a Common Clinical Problem.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Infection and the evaluation of biomarkers in obstetrics and gynecology patients with infectious disease: a retrospective observational study from clinical pharmacists' consultation experience.European journal of medical research · 2022Observational
- Factors affecting the length of hospital stay after laparoscopic appendectomy: A single center study.PloS one · 2020Article
- An inflammatory profile linked to increased suicide risk.Journal of affective disorders · 2019Article
- Concomitant leukocytosis and lymphopenia predict significant pathology at CT of acute abdomen: a case-control study.BMC emergency medicine · 2019Article
- Do C-reactive protein level, white blood cell count, and pain location guide the selection of patients for computed tomography imaging in non-traumatic acute abdomen?Emergency radiology · 2017Article
- Managing acute abdominal pain in pediatric patients: current perspectives.Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics · 2017Review
- Can C-reactive protein and white blood cell count alone rule out an urgent condition in acute abdominal pain?Internal and emergency medicine · 2016Article
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
The purpose of this article is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell (WBC) count to discriminate between urgent and nonurgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department, thereby guiding the selection of patients for immediate diagnostic imaging.Data from 3 large published prospective cohort studies of patients with acute abdominal pain were combined in an individual patient data meta-analysis. CRP levels and WBC counts were compared between patients with urgent and nonurgent final diagnoses. Parameters of diagnostic accuracy were calculated for clinically applicable cutoff values of CRP levels and WBC count, and for combinations.A total of 2961 patients were included of which 1352 patients (45.6%) had an urgent final diagnosis. The median WBC count and CRP levels were significantly higher in the urgent group than in the nonurgent group (12.8 ×10/L; interquartile range [IQR] 9.9-16) versus (9.3 ×10/L; IQR 7.2-12.1) and (46 mg/L; IQR 12-100 versus 10 mg/L; IQR 7-26) (P < 0.001).The highest positive predictive value (PPV) (85.5%) and lowest false positives (14.5%) were reached when cutoff values of CRP level >50 mg/L and WBC count >15 ×10/L were combined; however, 85.3% of urgent cases was missed.A high CRP level (>50 mg/L) combined with a high WBC count (>15 ×10/L) leads to the highest PPV. However, this applies only to a small subgroup of patients (8.7%). Overall, CRP levels and WBC count are insufficient markers to be used as a triage test in the selection for diagnostic imaging, even with a longer duration of complaints (>48 hours).
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.