Trial reportEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2020
Effects of primary care C-reactive protein point-of-care testing on antibiotic prescribing by general practice staff: pragmatic randomised controlled trial, England, 2016 and 2017.
Trial report in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care C-reactive protein devices for acute respiratory tract infections.Infection · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care diagnostics for AMR: a systematic review.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of national interventions and policies to optimize antibiotic use in healthcare settings in England.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Pooled it
- Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Implementation of C-Reactive Protein Point-of-Care Testing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: A Systematic Review Using the RE-AIM Framework.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Evaluation of utilisation and consequences of CRP point-of-care-testing in primary care practices: qualitative interviews with GPs from Germany.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Adoption of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests for the management of acute childhood infections in primary care in the Netherlands and England: a comparative health systems analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Review
- The Impact of Point-of-Care Blood C-Reactive Protein Testing on Prescribing Antibiotics in Out-of-Hours Primary Care: A Mixed Methods Evaluation.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing service for respiratory tract infections in community pharmacy: a qualitative study of service uptake and experience of pharmacists.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Article
- The cat is out of the bag - point-of-care testing (POCT) is here to stay.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundC-reactive protein (CRP) testing can be used as a point-of-care test (POCT) to guide antibiotic use for acute cough.AimWe wanted to determine feasibility and effect of introducing CRP POCT in general practices in an area with high antibiotic prescribing for patients with acute cough and to evaluate patients' views of the test.MethodsWe used a McNulty-Zelen cluster pragmatic randomised controlled trial design in general practices in Northern England. Eight intervention practices accepted CRP testing and eight control practices maintained usual practice. Data collection included process evaluation, patient questionnaires, practice audit and antibiotic prescribing data.ResultsEight practices with over 47,000 patient population undertook 268 CRP tests over 6 months: 78% of patients had a CRP < 20 mg/L, 20% CRP 20-100 mg/L and 2% CRP > 100 mg/L, where 90%, 22% and 100%, respectively, followed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) antibiotic prescribing guidance. Patients reported that CRP testing was comfortable (88%), convenient (84%), useful (92%) and explained well (85%). Patients believed CRP POCT aided clinical diagnosis, provided quick results and reduced unnecessary antibiotic use. Intervention practices had an estimated 21% reduction (95% confidence interval: 0.46-1.35) in the odds of prescribing for cough compared with the controls, a non-significant but clinically relevant reduction.ConclusionsIn routine general practice, CRP POCT use was variable. Non-significant reductions in antibiotic prescribing may reflect small sample size due to non-use of tests. While CRP POCT may be useful, primary care staff need clearer CRP guidance and action planning according to NICE guidance.
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.