Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32467355›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2020

The good and the bad: using C reactive protein to distinguish bacterial from non-bacterial infection among febrile patients in low-resource settings.

Camille Escadafal, Sandra Incardona, B Leticia Fernandez-Carballo, Sabine Dittrich

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07261969 (CRP and Patient Information Leaflets to Optimise Antibiotic Treatments for Adults With Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care in Kyrgyzstan), which is not on this map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07261969 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

CRP and Patient Information Leaflets to Optimise Antibiotic Treatments for Adults With Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care in Kyrgyzstan

TypeinterventionalSponsorRigshospitalet, DenmarkRan2024 to 2027Enrolled1,050ConditionsRespiratory Tract Infection Bacterial, Respiratory Tract Infection Viral, AMR, CRPArmsThe C-reactive protein point-of-care test (CRP-POCT), Patient information leaflets
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Camille EscadafalFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Sandra IncardonaFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
B Leticia Fernandez-CarballoFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Sabine DittrichFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland sabine.dittrich@finddx.org.ORCID 0000-0002-4522-2788
FIND · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

C reactive protein (CRP), a marker for the presence of an inflammatory process, is the most extensively studied marker for distinguishing bacterial from non-bacterial infections in febrile patients. A point-of-care test for bacterial infections would be of particular use in low-resource settings where other laboratory diagnostics are not always available, antimicrobial resistance rates are high and bacterial infections such as pneumonia are a leading cause of death. This document summarises evidence on CRP testing for bacterial infections in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). With a push for universal health coverage and prevention of antimicrobial resistance, it is important to understand if CRP might be able to do the job. The use of CRP polarised the global health community and the aim of this document is to summarise the 'good and the bad' of CRP in multiple settings in LMICs. In brief, the literature that was reviewed suggests that CRP testing may be beneficial in low-resource settings to improve rational antibiotic use for febrile patients, but the positive predictive value is insufficient to allow it to be used alone as a single tool. CRP testing may be best used as part of a panel of diagnostic tests and algorithms. Further studies in low-resource settings, particularly with regard to impact on antibiotic prescribing and cost-effectiveness of CRP testing, are warranted.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsC-Reactive ProteinAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiomarkersFeverHumansAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiomarkersC-Reactive Proteindiagnostics and toolspneumoniapublic healthtreatment

Identifiers

PMID32467355
PMCPMC7259834
OpenAlexW3028776080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.