ArticleBJGP open2025
Evaluation of utilisation and consequences of CRP point-of-care-testing in primary care practices: qualitative interviews with GPs from 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Out-of-hours C-reactive protein point-of-care testing and its association with long-term healthcare-seeking.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Use of qualitative and mixed methods research in diagnostic technology evaluation and implementation: insights from a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use and advantages of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for C-reactive protein (CRP) in general practice, especially for upper respiratory tract infections (uRTIs), have been studied extensively. However, there is limited knowledge about test indications, prerequisites, and integration of these tests into everyday practice.
aimTo investigate the attitudes and experiences of GPs in Germany regarding the use of semi-quantitative C-reactive protein point-of-care tests (CRP-POCTs). The study places special emphasis on implementation in routine care, including testing procedures, feasibility, opportunities, and barriers for specific consultation scenarios, as well as test indications and their impact on GP-patient communication. DESIGN &
settingQualitative interview study with 10 GPs (May 2023-August 2023) in Germany.
methodTen German GPs who participated in an observational study on CRP-POCT use in general practices were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Audio-recordings were transcribed and content analysis was performed.
resultsInterviewed GPs stated that CRP-POCTs offer several advantages for various treatment cases. The tests improve diagnostic confidence and certainty of GPs' therapeutic decisions, and offer a broad spectrum of indications and application scenarios. Additionally, the tests have a positive impact on GP-patient communication, and their ease of use enables rapid implementation into existing workflows. On the other hand, CRP-POCTs increase the time required for test performance and patient consultation.
conclusionOwing to the numerous benefits of semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs, interviewed GPs have a favourable attitude towards their regular integration into everyday practice. Implementation barriers include increased time and personnel expenses for testing and inadequate reimbursement by German statutory health insurance.
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.