4.6 Article

Performance of a bedside C-reactive protein test in the diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia in adults with acute cough

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 116, Issue 8, Pages 529-535

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2003.11.023

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a rapid, bedside whole blood C-reactive protein test as a diagnostic test for pneumonia in adults. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive adults who presented with acute cough (duration less than or equal to3 weeks). A fingerstick blood specimen for C-reactive protein level was obtained. Patients also provided information about demographic characteristics and symptoms. Physical examination findings, diagnoses, and treatments were abstracted from the medical record; illness duration and subsequent office visits were determined with follow-up telephone calls. A clinical prediction rule for pneumonia was calculated for each patient and compared with C-reactive protein levels. RESULTS: Twenty (12%) of the 168 patients in the study had radiographic evidence of pneumonia. Median C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher for patients with pneumonia than in the remaining patients (60 mg/L vs. 9 mg/L, P<0.0001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for C-reactive protein level as a predictor of pneumonia was 0.83. G-reactive protein level and the clinical prediction rule were independently associated with pneumonia, yielding a combined area under the ROC curve of 0.93. C-reactive protein level was not associated with hospitalization or resolution of symptoms. CONCLUSION: C-reactive protein levels could be a valuable addition to clinical prediction rules for pneumonia. A C-reactive protein level greater than or equal to100 mg/L might be a useful indication for chest radiography or empiric antibiotic therapy when the diagnosis of pneumonia is in doubt. (C) 2004 by Excerpta Medica Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available