ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2021
Accuracy of CREST Guideline in Management of Cellulitis in Emergency Department; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a digital image analysis system for objective evaluation of treatment response in cellulitis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An Overview of Published Articles inArchives of academic emergency medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSkin and soft tissue infections are important causes of outpatient visits to medical clinics or hospitals. This study aimed to review the literature for the accuracy of Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST) guideline in management of cellulitis in emergency department.
methodStudies that had evaluated cellulitis patients using the CREST guideline were quarried in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed database, from 2005 to the end of 2020. The quality of the studies was evaluated using Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) checklist for cohort studies. Pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of CREST guideline regarding the rate of hospital stay more than 24 hours, rate of revisit, and appropriateness of antimicrobial treatment in management of cellulitis in emergency department was evaluated.
resultsSeven studies evaluating a total of 1640 adult cellulitis patients were finally entered to the study. In evaluation of the rate of the appropriate treatment versus over-treatment, the pooled AUROC was estimated to be 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06 - 0.82), indicating low accuracy (AUROC lower than 0.5) of guideline for antimicrobial choice. CREST II patients had a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) of revisiting the Emergency Department, OR=0.21 (95% CI: 0.009 - 0.47). Pooled AUROC value of 0.86 (CI95%: 0.84 - 0.89) showed accuracy of the CREST classification in prediction of being hospitalized more or less than 24 hours.
conclusionCREST classification shows good accuracy in determining the duration of hospitalization or observation in ED but it could lead to inevitable over/under treatment with empirical antimicrobial agents.
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.