Cargando…

Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care blood C-reactive protein (CRP) testing has diagnostic value in helping clinicians rule out the possibility of serious infection. We investigated whether it should be offered to all acutely ill children in primary care or restricted to those identified as at risk on clinical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Verbakel, Jan Y., Lemiengre, Marieke B., De Burghgraeve, Tine, De Sutter, An, Aertgeerts, Bert, Shinkins, Bethany, Perera, Rafael, Mant, David, Van den Bruel, Ann, Buntinx, Frank
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27716201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0679-2
_version_ 1782458305649573888
author Verbakel, Jan Y.
Lemiengre, Marieke B.
De Burghgraeve, Tine
De Sutter, An
Aertgeerts, Bert
Shinkins, Bethany
Perera, Rafael
Mant, David
Van den Bruel, Ann
Buntinx, Frank
author_facet Verbakel, Jan Y.
Lemiengre, Marieke B.
De Burghgraeve, Tine
De Sutter, An
Aertgeerts, Bert
Shinkins, Bethany
Perera, Rafael
Mant, David
Van den Bruel, Ann
Buntinx, Frank
author_sort Verbakel, Jan Y.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Point-of-care blood C-reactive protein (CRP) testing has diagnostic value in helping clinicians rule out the possibility of serious infection. We investigated whether it should be offered to all acutely ill children in primary care or restricted to those identified as at risk on clinical assessment. METHODS: Cluster randomised controlled trial involving acutely ill children presenting to 133 general practitioners (GPs) at 78 GP practices in Belgium. Practices were randomised to undertake point-of-care CRP testing in all children (1730 episodes) or restricted to children identified as at clinical risk (1417 episodes). Clinical risk was assessed by a validated clinical decision rule (presence of one of breathlessness, temperature ≥ 40 °C, diarrhoea and age 12–30 months, or clinician concern). The main trial outcome was hospital admission with serious infection within 5 days. No specific guidance was given to GPs on interpreting CRP levels but diagnostic performance is reported at 5, 20, 80 and 200 mg/L. RESULTS: Restricting CRP testing to those identified as at clinical risk substantially reduced the number of children tested by 79.9 % (95 % CI, 77.8–82.0 %). There was no significant difference between arms in the number of children with serious infection who were referred to hospital immediately (0.16 % vs. 0.14 %, P = 0.88). Only one child with a CRP < 5 mg/L had an illness requiring admission (a child with viral gastroenteritis admitted for rehydration). However, of the 80 children referred to hospital to rule out serious infection, 24 (30.7 %, 95 % CI, 19.6–45.6 %) had a CRP < 5 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: CRP testing should be restricted to children at higher risk after clinical assessment. A CRP < 5 mg/L rules out serious infection and could be used by GPs to avoid unnecessary hospital referrals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02024282 (registered on 14(th) September 2012).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5052874
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50528742016-10-06 Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial Verbakel, Jan Y. Lemiengre, Marieke B. De Burghgraeve, Tine De Sutter, An Aertgeerts, Bert Shinkins, Bethany Perera, Rafael Mant, David Van den Bruel, Ann Buntinx, Frank BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Point-of-care blood C-reactive protein (CRP) testing has diagnostic value in helping clinicians rule out the possibility of serious infection. We investigated whether it should be offered to all acutely ill children in primary care or restricted to those identified as at risk on clinical assessment. METHODS: Cluster randomised controlled trial involving acutely ill children presenting to 133 general practitioners (GPs) at 78 GP practices in Belgium. Practices were randomised to undertake point-of-care CRP testing in all children (1730 episodes) or restricted to children identified as at clinical risk (1417 episodes). Clinical risk was assessed by a validated clinical decision rule (presence of one of breathlessness, temperature ≥ 40 °C, diarrhoea and age 12–30 months, or clinician concern). The main trial outcome was hospital admission with serious infection within 5 days. No specific guidance was given to GPs on interpreting CRP levels but diagnostic performance is reported at 5, 20, 80 and 200 mg/L. RESULTS: Restricting CRP testing to those identified as at clinical risk substantially reduced the number of children tested by 79.9 % (95 % CI, 77.8–82.0 %). There was no significant difference between arms in the number of children with serious infection who were referred to hospital immediately (0.16 % vs. 0.14 %, P = 0.88). Only one child with a CRP < 5 mg/L had an illness requiring admission (a child with viral gastroenteritis admitted for rehydration). However, of the 80 children referred to hospital to rule out serious infection, 24 (30.7 %, 95 % CI, 19.6–45.6 %) had a CRP < 5 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: CRP testing should be restricted to children at higher risk after clinical assessment. A CRP < 5 mg/L rules out serious infection and could be used by GPs to avoid unnecessary hospital referrals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02024282 (registered on 14(th) September 2012). BioMed Central 2016-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5052874/ /pubmed/27716201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0679-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Verbakel, Jan Y.
Lemiengre, Marieke B.
De Burghgraeve, Tine
De Sutter, An
Aertgeerts, Bert
Shinkins, Bethany
Perera, Rafael
Mant, David
Van den Bruel, Ann
Buntinx, Frank
Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial
title Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial
title_full Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial
title_fullStr Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial
title_full_unstemmed Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial
title_short Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial
title_sort should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care crp: a cluster randomised trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27716201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0679-2
work_keys_str_mv AT verbakeljany shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT lemiengremariekeb shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT deburghgraevetine shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT desutteran shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT aertgeertsbert shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT shinkinsbethany shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT pererarafael shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT mantdavid shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT vandenbruelann shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial
AT buntinxfrank shouldallacutelyillchildreninprimarycarebetestedwithpointofcarecrpaclusterrandomisedtrial