ArticleBJGP open2025
Utilisation and consequences of CRP point-of-care-testing in primary care practices: a real-world multicentre observational study with 1740 patient cases in Germany.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 the implementation process of POC-CRP devices in managing adults with cough in general practice: insights from a focus group study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Article
- How to identify respiratory pathogens in primary health care - a review on the benefits, prospects and pitfalls in using point of care tests.Infection · 2025Review
- Risk factors for poor prognosis in adult outpatient urinary tract infection: a meta-analysis.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Evaluation of utilisation and consequences of CRP point-of-care-testing in primary care practices: qualitative interviews with GPs from Germany.BJGP open · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundC-reactive protein point-of-care tests (CRP-POCTs) can support GPs' clinical decision making but they are not widely used in German general practices.
aimTo investigate the utilisation of semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs in routine primary care. DESIGN &
settingProspective observational study in 49 general practices in Germany (from November 2022-April 2023).
methodGPs were provided with CRP-POCTs and collected data for each CRP-POCT use, with standardised data-collection sheets.
resultsData from 1740 CRP-POCT uses were recorded. GPs employed CRP-POCTs mainly for patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs; 71.2% of all cases) and to a lesser extent for gastrointestinal infections (GIs; 10.4%). In RTIs, CRP-POCTs were frequently used to distinguish between bacterial and viral aetiology (60.8%) and to guide decisions on antibiotic prescribing (62.8%). In GIs, CRP-POCTs were mainly used to rule out severe disease progressions (53.2%) and for decisions on further diagnostic procedures (45.6%). In RTIs, CRP-POCTs influenced antibiotic prescribing in 77.5% of the cases (32.3% in favour versus 45.2% waiver). In GIs, CRP levels mainly affected decisions on further diagnostic procedures. GPs reported that CRP-POCTs were helpful in 88.6% of all cases.
conclusionWhen available, German GPs predominantly use semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs to guide decisions on antibiotic prescribing in patients with RTIs. CRP-POCT use improves clinical decision making and increases the GP's clinical confidence.
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.