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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |