4.1 Article

What a difference a CRP makes. A prospective observational study on how point-of-care C-reactive protein testing influences antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections in Swedish primary health care

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 275-282

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2015.1114348

关键词

C-reactive protein; respiratory tract infections; primary health care; antibacterial agents; drug prescriptions; general practice; point-of-care systems; Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore how C-reactive protein (CRP) tests serve to support physicians in decisions concerning antibiotic prescription to patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI). Design. Prospective observational study. Setting: Primary health care centres in western Sweden. Subjects. Physicians in primary health care. Patients with acute RTI. Main outcome measures: Physician willingness to measure CRP, their ability to estimate CRP, and changes in decision-making concerning antibiotic treatment based on error estimate and the physician's opinion of whether CRP measurement was crucial. Results: Data from 340 consultations were gathered. CRP testing was found to be crucial in 130 cases. In 86% of visits decisions regarding antibiotic prescription were unchanged. Physicians considering CRP crucial and physicians making an error estimate of CRP altered their decisions concerning antibiotic prescription after CRP testing more often than those who considered CRP unnecessary, and those making a more accurate estimate. Physicians changed their decision on antibiotic prescription in 49 cases. In the majority of these 49 cases physicians underestimated CRP levels, and the majority of changes were from no to yes as to whether to prescribe antibiotics. Conclusion: CRP is an important factor in the decision on whether to prescribe antibiotics for RTIs. Error estimates of CRP and willingness to measure CRP are important factors leading to physicians changing decisions on antibiotic treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据