Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32948060›Full record

ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Nahara Anani Martínez-González, Ellen Keizer, Andreas Plate, Samuel Coenen, Fabio Valeri, Jan Yvan Jos Verbakel, Thomas Rosemann, Stefan Neuner-Jehle, Oliver Senn

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Nahara Anani Martínez-GonzálezInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8258-4155
Ellen KeizerInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Andreas PlateInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6143-5479
Samuel CoenenCentre for General Practice, Department of Family Medicine & Population Health (FAMPOP), University of Antwerp-Campus Drie Eiken, Doornstraat 331, 2610 Antwerp (Wilrijk), Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1238-8052
Fabio ValeriInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Jan Yvan Jos VerbakelEPI-Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7166-7211
Thomas RosemannInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6436-6306
Stefan Neuner-JehleInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Oliver SennInstitute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4422-7250
University of Zurich · CHUniversity of Antwerp · BEUniversity of Lucerne · CHUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation (Bangerter-Stiftung) n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) is increasingly being promoted to reduce diagnostic uncertainty and enhance antibiotic stewardship. In primary care, respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, which is a major driver for antibiotic resistance. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the impact of CRP-POCT on antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Thirteen moderate to high-quality studies comprising 9844 participants met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that CRP-POCT significantly reduced immediate antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation compared with usual care (RR 0.79, 95%CI 0.70 to 0.90,

Indexed as

antibiotic prescribingantibiotic stewardshipantibiotic usec-reactive proteindiagnosticsmeta-analysispoint-of-care testingprimary carerespiratory tract infectionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32948060
PMCPMC7559694
OpenAlexW3086256323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.