ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
Is C-reactive protein the answer to antibiotics over-prescribing in primary care? A behavioural experiment in two European countries.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antibiotic overprescribing fuels antimicrobial resistance. C-reactive protein (CRP) is widely promoted as a point-of-care test for targeted prescribing. While routinely used in some European countries such as Norway, it is not part of standard practice in UK primary care. Understanding how CRP testing might impact general practitioners' (GP) judgement is critical for informed implementation. We explored this with UK and Norwegian GPs. Methods: One hundred and one GPs per country responded to four scenarios, describing patients with a range of infectious or inflammatory conditions. After reading a patient description, GPs could request further information, including CRP. The CRP result was either high or low, randomly assigned per GP and scenario. Each time GPs obtained new information, they indicated whether antibiotics were needed (Likert scale). At the end, they selected a management option. Results: Norwegian GPs requested CRP more often than UK GPs [77% versus 28%, odds ratio (OR) = 18.09 (95% CI 9.86-33.20), Conclusions: Despite marked differences in CRP requests, we detected no between-country differences in prescribing. Elevated CRP increased prescribing, whereas low CRP was not sufficiently reassuring. The results do not support routine use of CRP as an antimicrobial stewardship tool in primary care.
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.