Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
118
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of serum C reactive protein and procalcitonin concentrations in addition to symptoms and signs to predict pneumonia in patients presenting to primary care with acute cough: diagnostic study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives To quantify the diagnostic accuracy of selected inflammatory markers in addition to symptoms and signs for predicting pneumonia and to derive a diagnostic tool.

          Design Diagnostic study performed between 2007 and 2010. Participants had their history taken, underwent physical examination and measurement of C reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin in venous blood on the day they first consulted, and underwent chest radiography within seven days.

          Setting Primary care centres in 12 European countries.

          Participants Adults presenting with acute cough.

          Main outcome measures Pneumonia as determined by radiologists, who were blind to all other information when they judged chest radiographs.

          Results Of 3106 eligible patients, 286 were excluded because of missing or inadequate chest radiographs, leaving 2820 patients (mean age 50, 40% men) of whom 140 (5%) had pneumonia. Re-assessment of a subset of 1675 chest radiographs showed agreement in 94% (κ 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.54). Six published “symptoms and signs models” varied in their discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) ranged from 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.61) to 0.71 (0.66 to 0.76)). The optimal combination of clinical prediction items derived from our patients included absence of runny nose and presence of breathlessness, crackles and diminished breath sounds on auscultation, tachycardia, and fever, with an ROC area of 0.70 (0.65 to 0.75). Addition of CRP at the optimal cut off of >30 mg/L increased the ROC area to 0.77 (0.73 to 0.81) and improved the diagnostic classification (net reclassification improvement 28%). In the 1556 patients classified according to symptoms, signs, and CRP >30 mg/L as “low risk” (<2.5%) for pneumonia, the prevalence of pneumonia was 2%. In the 132 patients classified as “high risk” (>20%), the prevalence of pneumonia was 31%. The positive likelihood ratio of low, intermediate, and high risk for pneumonia was 0.4, 1.2, and 8.6 respectively. Measurement of procalcitonin added no relevant additional diagnostic information. A simplified diagnostic score based on symptoms, signs, and CRP >30 mg/L resulted in proportions of pneumonia of 0.7%, 3.8%, and 18.2% in the low, intermediate, and high risk group respectively.

          Conclusions A clinical rule based on symptoms and signs to predict pneumonia in patients presenting to primary care with acute cough performed best in patients with mild or severe clinical presentation. Addition of CRP concentration at the optimal cut off of >30 mg/L improved diagnostic information, but measurement of procalcitonin concentration did not add clinically relevant information in this group.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          CIRCULATION

          SS Chugh (1964)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial

            Objective To assess the effect of general practitioner testing for C reactive protein (disease approach) and receiving training in enhanced communication skills (illness approach) on antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infection. Design Pragmatic, 2×2 factorial, cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 20 general practices in the Netherlands. Participants 40 general practitioners from 20 practices recruited 431 patients with lower respiratory tract infection. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic prescribing during 28 days’ follow-up, reconsultation, clinical recovery, and patients’ satisfaction and enablement. Interventions General practitioners’ use of C reactive protein point of care testing and training in enhanced communication skills separately and combined, and usual care. Results General practitioners in the C reactive protein test group prescribed antibiotics to 31% of patients compared with 53% in the no test group (P=0.02). General practitioners trained in enhanced communication skills prescribed antibiotics to 27% of patients compared with 54% in the no training group (P<0.01). Both interventions showed a statistically significant effect on antibiotic prescribing at any point during the 28 days’ follow-up. Clinicians in the combined intervention group prescribed antibiotics to 23% of patients (interaction term was non-significant). Patients’ recovery and satisfaction were similar in all study groups. Conclusion Both general practitioners’ use of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in enhanced communication skills significantly reduced antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infection without compromising patients’ recovery and satisfaction with care. A combination of the illness and disease focused approaches may be necessary to achieve the greatest reduction in antibiotic prescribing for this common condition in primary care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN85154857.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Principles of multilevel modelling.

              Multilevel modelling, also known as hierarchical regression, generalizes ordinary regression modelling to distinguish multiple levels of information in a model. Use of multiple levels gives rise to an enormous range of statistical benefits. To aid in understanding these benefits, this article provides an elementary introduction to the conceptual basis for multilevel modelling, beginning with classical frequentist, Bayes, and empirical-Bayes techniques as special cases. The article focuses on the role of multilevel averaging ('shrinkage') in the reduction of estimation error, and the role of prior information in finding good averages.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: general practitioner
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: analyst
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: radiologist
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2013
                2013
                30 April 2013
                : 346
                : f2450
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands
                [2 ]University of Antwerp, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), Antwerp, Belgium
                [3 ]University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiology, Utrecht, Netherlands
                [4 ]Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales
                [5 ]Primary Care Medical Group, University of Southampton Medical School, Southampton, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: B D L Broekhuizen b.d.l.broekhuizen@ 123456umcutrecht.nl
                Article
                vans006367
                10.1136/bmj.f2450
                3639712
                23633005
                e425e96f-2579-4550-9663-e05502dfda85
                © van Vugt et al 2013

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.

                History
                : 05 April 2013
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content130

                Cited by89

                Most referenced authors1,914