ArticlePragmatic and observational research2019
Management Of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: An Observational Study In UK Primary Care.
Article in Pragmatic and observational research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management and documentation of pneumonia - a comparison of patients consulting primary care and emergency care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Article
- Incidence of pneumococcal disease from 2003 to 2019 in children ≤17 years in England.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 2023Article
- Healthcare resource utilisation and cost of pneumococcal disease from 2003 to 2019 in children ≤17 years in England.PloS one · 2023Article
- Antimicrobial prescribing and outcomes of community-acquired pneumonia in Australian hospitalized patients: a cross-sectional study.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn primary care, initial diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is made on clinical judgment without radiological confirmation or knowledge of the causative organism. Use of CRB65 score has been recommended for assessing the severity of CAP and thereby determining clinical management, but it is not known how frequently these scores are used in primary care. PATIENTS AND
methodsPrimary care consultations in adults with a diagnostic code for CAP between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2016 were extracted from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database, which at the time of data extraction had over 3.4 million patients in the UK. Episodes without antibiotic prescription on day of diagnosis were excluded, as were records describing past events. Patients admitted to hospital on day of diagnosis were excluded, but were included in exploratory analysis of CRB65 recording.
resultsIn total, 4734 episodes of CAP in adults managed in primary care between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2016 were included. A range of investigations/observations were recorded, including pulse rate (10.7%), chest examinations (9.1%) and blood tests (5.4%). CRB65 scores were recorded in 19 (0.4%) episodes of CAP, 17 of which were after the publication of the NICE guidelines in December 2014. CRB65 recording was no more frequent in 3819 episodes referred to hospital (12, 0.3%; p=0.63), but where recorded, CRB65 scores were higher (Median: 1.0 [interquartile range: 0.5-1.0] vs 2.0 [interquartile range: 1.0-2.0], p=0.04). The most commonly prescribed antibiotic was amoxicillin (40.3%), and 85.9% of episodes had a prescription length of seven days.
conclusionCRB65 scores are seldom recorded in UK primary care. Given that these scores are embedded in UK guidelines, further work is required to assess feasibility and barriers to use of CRB65 scores in primary care.
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.