Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWatson, J
dc.contributor.authorJones, HE
dc.contributor.authorBanks, J
dc.contributor.authorWhiting, P
dc.contributor.authorSalisbury, C
dc.contributor.authorHamilton, W
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-30T15:06:34Z
dc.date.issued2019-06-18
dc.description.abstractBackground: Research comparing C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plasma viscosity (PV) in primary care is lacking. Clinicians often test multiple inflammatory markers, leading to concerns about overuse. Aim: To compare the diagnostic accuracies of CRP, ESR, and PV, and to evaluate whether measuring two inflammatory markers increases accuracy. Design and setting: Prospective cohort study in UK primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Method: The authors compared diagnostic test performance of inflammatory markers, singly and paired, for relevant disease, defined as any infections, autoimmune conditions, or cancers. For each of the three tests (CRP, ESR, and PV), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under receiver operator curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: Participants comprised 136 961 patients with inflammatory marker testing in 2014; 83 761 (61.2%) had a single inflammatory marker at the index date, and 53 200 (38.8%) had multiple inflammatory markers. For 'any relevant disease', small differences were seen between the three tests; AUC ranged from 0.659 to 0.682. CRP had the highest overall AUC, largely because of marginally superior performance in infection (AUC CRP 0.617, versus ESR 0.589, P<0.001). Adding a second test gave limited improvement in the AUC for relevant disease (CRP 0.682, versus CRP plus ESR 0.688, P<0.001); this is of debatable clinical significance. The NPV for any single inflammatory marker was 94% compared with 94.1% for multiple negative tests. Conclusion: Testing multiple inflammatory markers simultaneously does not increase ability to rule out disease and should generally be avoided. CRP has marginally superior diagnostic accuracy for infections, and is equivalent for autoimmune conditions and cancers, so should generally be the first-line test.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Researchen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipCancer Research UKen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipCLAHRC Westen_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 69, pp. E662 - E669en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3399/bjgp19X704309
dc.identifier.grantnumberDRF-2016-09-034en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberC8640/A23385en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/39396
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherRoyal College of General Practitionersen_GB
dc.rightsThis article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/).en_GB
dc.subjectblood plasmaen_GB
dc.subjectblood testsen_GB
dc.subjectc-reactive proteinen_GB
dc.subjecterythrocyte sedimentation rateen_GB
dc.subjectprimary careen_GB
dc.titleUse of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: Using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-10-30T15:06:34Z
dc.identifier.issn0960-1643
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of General Practiceen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-04-11
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-04-11
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-10-30T15:00:22Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2019-10-30T15:06:36Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record