ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
Are C-reactive protein and procalcitonin safe and useful for antimicrobial stewardship purposes in patients with COVID-19? A scoping review.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2024. 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.
- Antibiotic Prescribing in Patients Presenting with COVID-19: A Closed-Loop Audit with a Targeted Educational Intervention in a South Australian Hospital.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Procalcitonin: Infection or Maybe Something More? Noninfectious Causes of Increased Serum Procalcitonin Concentration: Updated Knowledge.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The primary objectives of this study were to assess the usefulness of C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) in the diagnosis of bacterial co-infections in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and if their incorporation in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs is safe and useful, stratified by severity of disease as level of care, intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU. Our secondary objectives were to identify cut-off values for antibiotic decision-making and identify reported results from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Design: A scoping review of published literature, adhering to the PRISMA statement for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The last search was performed in January 2024. Results: Fifty-nine studies were included in this scoping review: 20 studies reporting predictive values and/or sensitivity/specificity results for PCT, 8 reporting clear objectives on AMS, and 3 studies from LMICs. Conclusion: In the context of non-ICU hospitalized COVID-19 patients in high-income countries, a PCT value below 0.25 mg/L can be a useful tool to rule out bacterial co-infection. The wide range of reported negative predictive values suggests that PCT should be interpreted in the context of other clinical findings. Our results do not support the use of CRP in the same manner as PCT. There is a clear need for more studies in LMICs.
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.