The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic value of C reactive protein in infections of the lower respiratory tract: systematic review
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of C reactive protein in detecting radiologically proved pneumonia and to evaluate how well it can discriminate between bacterial and viral infections of the lower respiratory tract. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Embase (January 1966 to April 2004), with reference checking. STUDY SELECTION: We included articles comparing C reactive protein with a chest radiograph or with microbiological work-up as a reference test. Two authors independently assessed methodological items. RESULTS: None of the studies met all validity criteria. Six studies used an infiltrate on chest radiograph as reference test. Sensitivities ranged from 10% to 98%, specificities from 44% to 99%. For adults, the relation of C reactive protein with an infiltrate (in a subgroup analysis of five studies) showed an area under the curve of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.85). In 12 studies, the relation of C reactive protein with a bacterial aetiology of infection of the lower respiratory tract was studied. Sensitivities ranged from 8% to 99%, specificities from 27% to 95%. These data were epidemiologically and statistically heterogeneous, so overall outcomes could not be calculated. CONCLUSION: Testing for C reactive protein is neither sufficiently sensitive to rule out nor sufficiently specific to rule in an infiltrate on chest radiograph and bacterial aetiology of lower respiratory tract infection. The methodological quality of the diagnostic studies is generally poor. The evidence not consistently and sufficiently supports a wide introduction of C reactive protein as a rapid test to guide antibiotics prescription.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Cited by
Cals, J. W. L., Butler, C. C., Hopstaken, R. M., Hood, K., & Dinant, G.-J. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b1374 · Cited by 498
Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections - Summary
Woodhead, M., Blasi, F., Ewig, S., Garau, J., Huchon, G., Ieven, M., Ortqvist, A., Schaberg, T., Torres, A., van der Heijden, G., et al. (2011) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03602.x · Cited by 468
Little, P., Stuart, B., Francis, N., Douglas, E., Tonkin-Crine, S., Anthierens, S., Cals, J. W., Melbye, H., Santer, M., Moore, M., et al. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60994-0 · Cited by 430
Van den Bruel, A., Thompson, M. J., Haj-Hassan, T., Stevens, R., Moll, H., Lakhanpaul, M., & Mant, D. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d3082 · Cited by 324
A prospective study of sleep duration and pneumonia risk in women
Patel, S. R., Malhotra, A., Gao, X., Hu, F. B., Neuman, M. I., & Fawzi, W. W. (2012) · Sleep · doi:10.5665/sleep.1594 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Meer, V., Neven, A. K., van den Broek, P. J., & Assendelft, W. J. J.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-06-24
- Volume
- 331
- Issue
- 7507
- Pages
- 26
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2119068637
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic value of C reactive protein in infections of the lower respiratory tract: systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38483.478183.eb
- The paper
- van der Meer, V., Neven, A. K., van den Broek, P. J., & Assendelft, W. J. J. (2005). Diagnostic value of C reactive protein in infections of the lower respiratory tract: systematic review. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38483.478183.eb
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.