Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40436444›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Point-of-caRE DiagnostICs for respiraTOry tRact infectionS (PREDICTORS) study: developing guidance for using C-reactive protein point-of-care tests in the management of lower respiratory tract infections in primary care using a Delphi consensus technique.

Joseph O'Shea, Carmel Hughes, Gerard J Molloy, Cathal Cadogan, Akke Vellinga, Tom Fahey, Cristín Ryan

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joseph O'SheaSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland joseph.oshea@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9860-9807
Carmel HughesSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4656-6021
Gerard J MolloySchool of Psychology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Cathal CadoganSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8778-0112
Akke VellingaSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Tom FaheyDepartment of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5896-5783
Cristín RyanSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAntimicrobial resistance is a significant global health challenge, exacerbated by unnecessary antibiotic prescribing. Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are common reasons for antibiotic prescribing in primary care, despite most being viral or bacterial infections that are self-limiting. C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care tests (POCTs) are promising tools to support antibiotic stewardship by guiding the management of lower RTIs (LRTIs). The aim of this study was to develop best practice guidance for using CRP POCT in the management of LRTIs in primary care.

designScoping review findings informed guidance statements, which were then evaluated through a three-round Delphi process with an expert panel via web-based questionnaires. Statements focused on intended use, detection of bacterial LRTIs, communication strategies, device features, performance and ease of use of CRP POCT. SETTING AND

participantsThe panel of experts included 19 healthcare professionals across several specialties, including general practitioners, community pharmacists, hospital pharmacists and respiratory physicians.

main outcome measuresPanellists rated each guidance statement using a 5-point Likert scale, with acceptance, revision or rejection determined using predefined cut-off scores for medians and interquartile ranges. Statements were revised between rounds using the feedback provided by panellists.

resultsIn the first round, 49 statements were evaluated; 16 were accepted, nine removed and 24 revised for the second round. Of the 24 statements evaluated in the second round, 17 were accepted and seven were revised. In the third round, consensus was reached on four of the seven statements presented, resulting in 37 final guidance statements. These statements covered key areas, including the appropriate use of CRP POCTs to guide antibiotic prescribing, CRP cut-off values, integration with clinical decision rules, device performance and operational considerations, training requirements and financial reimbursement. The panel emphasised the need for structured guidelines to align CRP POCT use with clinical context and highlighted its role in improving diagnostic confidence while supporting antibiotic stewardship.

conclusionsThis study provides a set of best practice guidance statements to support the use of CRP POCT in the management of LRTIs in primary care. Dissemination and further research are required to assess their impact.

Indexed as

C-Reactive ProteinPoint-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingRespiratory Tract InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipDelphi TechniqueHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsC-Reactive ProteinAntibioticsPrimary CareRespiratory Therapy

Identifiers

PMID40436444
PMCPMC12121597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.