Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33153517›Full record

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.

Charlotte Victoria Eley, Anita Sharma, Hazel Lee, Andre Charlett, Rebecca Owens, Cliodna Ann Miriam McNulty

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 · 2020
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte Victoria EleyPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester, United Kingdom.
Anita SharmaAn NHS Clinical Commissioning Group, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
Hazel LeeAn NHS Clinical Commissioning Group, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
Andre CharlettStatistics Unit, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Rebecca OwensPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester, United Kingdom.
Cliodna Ann Miriam McNultyPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester, United Kingdom.
Public Health England · GBBristol Clinical Commissioning Group · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anti-Bacterial AgentsC-Reactive ProteinGeneral PracticePoint-of-Care TestingPractice Patterns, Physicians'CoughEnglandHumansPrimary Health CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsC-Reactive ProteinantibioticsC-reactive proteingeneral practicepoint-of-care testrandomised control trial

Identifiers

PMID33153517
PMCPMC7645970
OpenAlexW3097420698

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.