SynthesisInfection2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care C-reactive protein devices for acute respiratory tract infections.
Synthesis in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are among the most common reasons for antibiotic prescriptions globally, despite the majority being viral and self-limiting. Because clinical signs alone are often insufficient, there is a clear need for rapid diagnostic methods to support evidence-based prescribing. We assessed the effectiveness of point-of-care C-reactive protein (POCT-CRP) testing devices for distinguishing between bacterial and viral ARTIs. Our search of five databases produced 413 studies, of which 29 met criteria, and six were included in the meta-analysis. The devices with adequate performance data were QuikRead CRP, NycoCard Reader II, and FebriDx®. Overall pooled sensitivity 70% (95% CI 52-83%) and specificity 86% (95% CI 80-91%). The FebriDx showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI 76-90%) and specificity of 87% (95% CI 82-91%). The QuikRead showed a pooled sensitivity of 35% (95% CI 30-40%) and specificity of 86% (95% CI 82-89%). The NycoCard Reader II showed a pooled sensitivity of 54% (95% CI 21-83%) and specificity of 86% (95% CI 59-96%). Although POCT-CRP testing is useful in distinguishing between bacterial and viral ARTIs and is critical for antibiotic prescription, further evidence, including cost-effectiveness analysis, is needed to determine whether the implementation of POCT-CRP improves value or merely raises healthcare expenses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41498909What 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.