ArticleLe infezioni in medicina2022
The utility of point of care testing of procalcitonin in paediatric acute assessment.
Article in Le infezioni in medicina, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Febrile illnesses are a common cause of presentation in acute pediatrics, with biomarkers frequently used to help differentiate mild infections from serious bacterial infections (SBI). We aimed to see if a point of care test for procalcitonin could help to reduce antibiotic use and avoid unnecessary admission. Patients and Methods: A point of care procalcitonin machine which produces results within 20 minutes was introduced to two pediatric assessment units across both sites of a secondary-care hospital trust, alongside guidance for when tested would be appropriate. We performed a prospective, observational, pilot service evaluation, of all children tested during the study period of November 2018 to March 2019. We collected data at the time of testing, including the indication for testing and plan prior to testing, then retrospectively collected outcome data for children tested including diagnosis, treatment and whether the child was admitted to hospital. Results: 68 tests were performed over 5 months. There are differing denominators due to missing data. Children were predominantly male (40/68, 58.8%) and pre-school age (median age 2.9y, Q1-Q3 1.3-6.7). Severity of illness was low, with 7/54 (11.5%) triggering sepsis tools. The primary indication for testing was febrile illness with no source of infection and some concerning features (31/59, 52.5%). Following testing, 35/67 (52.5%) of patients were admitted and 31/67 (47.1%) had IV antibiotics. A low procalcitonin (<0.5 ng/L) was observed in 46/67 (69.1%) of patients, however 21/46 (45.7%) of these children were admitted and 16/46 (34.8%) were given IV antibiotics. Procalcitonin performed poorly at detecting SBIs in this cohort (result >0.5 ng/L for 1/5 SBIs). Conclusion: There was no clear impact of point of care procalcitonin on admission or antibiotic prescribing in this small pilot study. Clinicians often tested for reasons outside the recommended scenarios and often treated "low risk" patients, as determined by low procalcitonin, with antibiotics. These effects may be due to low familiarity with procalcitonin as a biomarker.
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.