Use of C-reactive protein to tailor antibiotic use: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: C-reactive protein (CRP) has been proposed to guide the use of antibiotics. However, study results are controversial regarding the benefits of such a strategy. We synthesised the evidence of CRP-based algorithms on antibiotic treatment initiation and on antibiotic treatment duration in adults, children and neonates, as well as their safety profile. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from inception to 20 July 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) investigating CRP-guided antibiotic use in adults, children and neonates with bacterial infection. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently screened all identified studies and retrieved the data. Outcomes were duration of antibiotic use, antibiotic initiation, mortality, infection relapse and hospitalisation. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool (RCTs), and A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (non-RCTs). We analysed our results using descriptive statistics and random effects models. RESULTS: Of 11 165 studies screened, 15 were included. In five RCTs in adult outpatients, the risk difference for antibiotic treatment initiation in the CRP group was -7% (95% CI: -10% to -4%), with no difference in hospitalisation rate. In neonates, CRP-based algorithms shortened antibiotic treatment duration by -1.45 days (95% CI -2.61 to -0.28) in two RCTs, and by -1.15 days (95% CI -2.06 to -0.24) in two cohort studies, with no differences in mortality or infection relapse. CONCLUSION: The use of CRP-based algorithms seems to reduce antibiotic treatment duration in neonates, as well as to decrease antibiotic treatment initiation in adult outpatients. However, further high-quality studies are still needed to assess safety, particularly in children outside the neonatal period. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016038622.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".