Cover of Evidence review for rapid tests to inform triage and antibiotic prescribing decisions

Evidence review for rapid tests to inform triage and antibiotic prescribing decisions

Suspected acute respiratory infection in over 16s: assessment at first presentation and initial management

Evidence review B

NICE Guideline, No. 237

Authors

,1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,3 ,1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ,5 ,3 ,3 and 3,*.

Affiliations

1 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
2 Effective Evidence LLP, Waterlooville, UK
3 Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
4 Freelance reviewer
5 Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Copyright © 2023 Scandrett et al. This work was produced by Scandrett et al. (West Midlands Evidence Synthesis Group) under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and has been submitted for publication in the NIHR Journals Library.

Abstract

Background:

This review assessed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of point of care tests (POCTs) to guide the triage and treatment of people (≥16 years old) presenting with suspected acute respiratory infection (ARI).

Methods:

Searches for systematic reviews, RCTs and cost utility studies were conducted in May 2023. Sources included MEDLINE, Epistemonikos Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, the CEA Registry and reference checking.

Eligible studies included people aged 16 and over making initial contact with the health system with symptoms suggestive of ARI.

Risk of bias of RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool. The Drummond checklist was used for cost utility studies.

Meta-analyses of clinical effectiveness outcomes were conducted to estimate summary risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

The study characteristics and main results of included cost utility studies were summarised narratively and tabulated.

Results:

Clinical effectiveness

Fourteen studies were included; all were at a high risk of bias. Ten studies analysed POC C-reactive protein (CRP) tests. The effects of CRP tests compared with usual care on hospital admissions and mortality were highly uncertain due to sparse data. Three studies had heterogeneous findings on resolution of symptoms/time to full recovery. The risk of re-consultations increased in patients receiving CRP POCT (risk ratio 1.61, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.41; 4 studies). There was a reduction in antibiotics initially prescribed (CRP POCT vs. usual care: risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84; 9 studies).

The effects of procalcitonin POCT compared with usual care on hospital admission, escalation of care, and duration of symptoms were very uncertain as evidence was available from only one study. The study found a large reduction in initial antibiotic prescriptions within 7 days.

Two studies found a large reduction in initial antibiotic prescriptions for Group A Streptococcus (GAS) POCTs versus usual care. Only one study compared an influenza POCT with usual care. The effect on antibiotics prescribed was very uncertain. No deaths occurred in either treatment group.

Cost-effectiveness

Six of the included cost utility studies were judged to be directly applicable to our review question, four of which evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CRP POCT. The results suggested that CRP POCT is potentially cost-effective; these studies were generally limited to capturing only short-term costs and consequences.

One cost utility study evaluated 14 different POCTs for GAS and found that none of the POCTs evaluated were cost-effective compared with usual care.

A further study evaluated two rapid tests (Quidel for influenza, and BinaxNOW for the pneumococcal antigen) compared to culture/serology and found that they were not cost-effective.

Funding:

This project was funded by NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme, Project number NIHR159946.

Registration:

PROSPERO CRD42023429515

Plain Language Summary:

Acute respiratory infection is a group of common diseases caused by viruses or bacteria. Examples of acute respiratory infection include ‘cold’ and flu. When people consult a doctor (or other healthcare professionals) for suspected acute respiratory infection, it is not always easy for the doctor to identify what is causing the symptoms. The doctor also needs to assess whether the patient’s condition is serious or may become serious. Laboratory tests can provide useful information to help the doctor decide what to do next, but it used to take several hours or days to get the test results back. This delay means the doctor cannot use the test results to make a decision while seeing the patient. Rapid tests that can be done and produce results quickly (within 45 minutes) are now available. It is currently unclear whether the use of these rapid tests to assess patients would improve or worsen patient outcomes or increase or decrease costs overall.

We conducted a rapid review of the literature to summarise the best available published evidence to help answer these questions. We found that rapid tests for C-reactive protein (a substance that tends to increase more in our blood when we have an infection caused by bacteria) may reduce the need for doctors to prescribe antibiotics, but the number of patients who come back to see the doctor again may increase. There is still some uncertainty in this evidence. Previous studies suggested that the test may represent good value for money but most studies only considered costs and outcomes in the short-term. Evidence is either very limited to draw conclusions or did not indicate good value for money for other rapid tests that we evaluated.

List of abbreviations

AMR

Antimicrobial resistance

ARI

Acute respiratory infection

CEAC

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve

COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CRP

C-reactive protein

CUA

Cost-utility analysis

DIA

Digital immunoassay

GAS

Group A streptococcus

GP

General practice / general practitioner

HRQoL

Health-related quality of life

ICD

International Classification of Diseases

ICER

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

ITT

Intention to treat

LRTI

Lower respiratory tract infection

NAAT

Nucleic acid amplification tests

NAI

Neuraminidase inhibitors

NMB

Net monetary benefit

NR

Not reported

NHS

National Health Service

NICE

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

OIA

Optical immunoassay

PCR

Polymerase chain reaction

POC

Point of care

POCT

Point of care test

QALD

Quality-adjusted life day

QALE

Quality-adjusted life expectancy

QALY

Quality-adjusted life year

RADT

Rapid antigen detection test

RIDT

Rapid influenza diagnostic test

RCT

Randomised controlled trial

RR

Risk ratio

RSV

Respiratory syncytial virus

RTI

Respiratory tract infection

SD

Standard deviation

SE

Standard error

US

United States

WTP

Willingness to pay

1. Introduction

Acute respiratory infection (ARI) is a common illness caused by a wide variety of viral and bacterial pathogens. In the UK, self-management is encouraged for adults with suspected ARI with minor symptoms. People with more severe symptoms, or ongoing symptoms that do not resolve and worsen over time may contact NHS 111 through a designated website or telephone, seek an appointment with their general practitioner (GP), visit a walk-in centre or request a home visit (including care homes) by a GP. More recently, ARI hubs (which are treatments centres established specifically for ARI to provide new or more integrated services with same-day access in addition to the existing services mentioned above) are being set up through funding provided by NHS England.1 Patients who are severely unwell suggestive of serious conditions and/or rapid deterioration may call the ambulance service or self-present to a hospital emergency department (ED) department. A variety of rapid point of care tests (POCTs), defined as any medical device and/or system that enables diagnosis, monitoring or screening of patients at the time and place of care by appropriately trained users,2 have become available that could help healthcare professionals in the initial assessment of patients with suspected ARI in these settings. Evidence on clinical and cost-effectiveness of these tests is emerging and requires careful evaluation to inform a decision on their adoption in clinical practice. This rapid synthesis of evidence addresses this gap.

Two broad types of POCTs are considered:

(1)

POCTs for determining the possible cause of the acute respiratory symptoms. These can be further categorised into two groups:

i)

POCTs using host biomarkers to detect an inflammatory response and/or distinguish between bacterial and viral infections

These tests utilise host-response biomarkers that can be potential surrogates for detecting bacterial infections.3 Many rapid tests targeting different biomarkers have been developed, including those for C-reactive protein (CRP)3, procalcitonin,4 Myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA),5 Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL),5 and Interferon-γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10, also known as C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 [CXCL 10]).6 Some POCTs can test more than one biomarker simultaneously.7

ii)

POCTs for the detection of specific pathogens

These tests detect antigens (substances such as nucleic acid or protein) from specific viruses or bacteria that may have caused the symptoms for the suspected ARI, and so are also known as rapid antigen tests. Common targets of rapid antigen tests related to ARI include influenza A and B, Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV),8 Group A β-hemolytic Streptococcus,9 and Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila.10

Given the relatively low cost of COVID-19 lateral flow tests and their wide adoption by the general public with suspected ARI, rapid tests for COVID-19 infection are likely to be used earlier in the diagnostic pathway compared with other POCTs for ARI, and therefore they were not evaluated in this rapid evidence synthesis.

(2)

POCTs for monitoring the patient’s physiological condition and detection of those in unstable or critical condition requiring urgent referral or immediate intervention. These tests have wide clinical applications and are not specifically used for patients with ARI. They include:

  • Blood gases (arterial blood gas analysis), which may also simultaneously provide blood chemistry/electrolytes analysis, including lactate, sodium and urea. These could alternatively obtained through blood samples drawn from veins.
  • Full blood count: this test assesses the number of red blood cells, white blood cells (white blood cell count) and platelets in the blood, measures the size and amount of haemoglobin in the red blood cells and calculates the haematocrit (percentage of red blood cells in terms of volume in the blood).

2. Objectives

The objectives of this rapid synthesis were to identify, appraise and synthesise evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of different near-patient, rapid microbiological or biomarker tests alone or in combination to guide initial assessment and management in people aged 16 and over with suspected ARI.

3. Methods

This research consists of two distinct reviews, conducted in parallel, one focused on clinical effectiveness and one focused on cost-effectiveness. The methods used to conduct these reviews were pre-specified and documented in a protocol (Appendix 1), which was registered on Prospero (reference: CRD42023429515). There is synergy between the two methodologies presented. In this section, we first describe the methodology for the clinical effectiveness review. We then detail the methodology for the cost-effectiveness review, highlighting where the methodology differs (to avoid repetition).

3.1. Clinical Effectiveness Review

3.1.1. Search Strategy

Searches were developed iteratively and combined the concepts of acute respiratory infections and near patient and rapid tests, with study type filters being applied where appropriate.

3.1.1.1. Systematic reviews

The following databases were searched from inception to May 2023 (see Appendix 2 for exact dates) for systematic reviews:

  • MEDLINE via Ovid
  • Epistemonikos

Search concepts combined acute respiratory infection and rapid tests (as a broad concept). These elements were based on the draft search strategy developed by Bristol Evidence Synthesis Group for a related review, with some terms removed (see excluded conditions listed in section 3.1.2.1 below). Appendix 2 shows our full record of searches. A sensitive systematic review search filter (based on CADTH’s SR / MA / HTA / ITC filter11) was applied to the MEDLINE search. No date limit was applied. The MEDLINE search was restricted to English language, and comments, editorials, letters and news items were removed.

References identified by the project team via highly targeted searches during the scoping phase were also reviewed.

3.1.1.2. RCTs

Additional searches to find RCTs were conducted in the following databases.

  • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), from inception
  • Embase (Ovid), limited by date
  • MEDLINE (Ovid), limited by date

The same subject search terms to those used for the search for systematic reviews were included, but we broadened this search by adding terms for specific biomarkers and tests in combination with terms for guide or inform. These terms were included in order to additionally capture the concept of biomarker test guided management. See Appendix 2 for our full record of searches. As the identified systematic reviews were all limited to specific populations, interventions and outcomes (that is, none fully addressed our research question), and it was difficult to say whether a combination of reviews would cover our review question, we did not to limit the CENTRAL search by date. Based on an understanding of how the CENTRAL database is created12 and the rapid timescales for this review, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for literature published from 2022 to May 2023 only by applying a date limit. A sensitive RCT filter was used in MEDLINE and Embase (based on the latest versions of Cochrane’s sensitivity- and precision-maximizing versions1315).

Searches were restricted to English language and humans, and excluded:

  • Conference abstracts
  • Editorials, letters, news items and commentaries

Pre-print sources were not searched.

References of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were checked.

3.1.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

3.1.2.1. Population
Inclusion criteria

People aged 16 years or over with suspected acute respiratory infection.

Exclusion criteria

People aged 16 years or over:

  • With a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (patients with known COVID will be triaged in a different way, suspected COVID would be treated as suspected ARI).
  • All inpatients in hospital.
  • Who have a respiratory infection during end-of-life care.
  • With aspiration pneumonia, bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis or known immunosuppression.
  • Who are presenting with acute respiratory infections that rarely require or lead to escalation of care to hospital admission such as otitis media and sinusitis.

Children and young people under 16 years were excluded. Acute respiratory infection mostly found in children and infants such as croup, bronchiolitis and whooping cough are therefore excluded.

3.1.2.2. Intervention
Inclusion criteria

Near patient, rapid tests (turnaround time ≤ 45mins, also known as point of care tests) which are currently licensed and available for use in the UK as follows:

  • Rapid antigen test
  • Rapid PCR tests
  • Urinary antigen tests
  • C-reactive protein
  • Procalcitonin
  • Serum sodium
  • Urea nitrogen
  • Partial pressure O2
  • Blood gases
  • Full blood count
  • White blood cell count
  • Myxovirus resistance protein A
  • TNF-related apoptosis-induced ligand (TRAIL)
  • Interferon-γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10)

Protocol amendment: where a test is no longer available in the UK and it was unclear whether it has been superseded by a similar version or product, and the study was otherwise eligible, a pragmatic decision was made to include the study with a caveat regarding test availability.

Exclusion criterion

Tests for Covid-19

3.1.2.3. Comparator

Current practice

3.1.2.4. Outcomes
  • Hospital admission (immediately after triage or at 28 days)
  • Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation):
    -

    Re-consultation/appointment

    -

    Virtual Ward

    -

    Emergency department visit

    -

    Unplanned hospital admission

  • Hospital length of stay
  • Follow-up consultation/ongoing monitoring
  • Antibiotic/antiviral use
  • Time to clinical cure/resolution of symptoms
  • Mortality
  • HRQoL (using a validated scale)
3.1.2.5. Study designs
Inclusion criteria
  • Systematic reviews of RCTs
  • RCTs
Exclusion criteria
  • Non-systematic reviews
  • Non RCTs
  • Studies not published in English
  • Pre-prints
  • Dissertations and theses
  • Registry entries for ongoing clinical trials
  • Editorials, letters, news items and commentaries
  • Animal studies
  • Conference abstracts and posters
  • Derivation studies

3.1.3. Screening

Titles and abstracts were reviewed by one reviewer with 20% of the titles and abstracts being reviewed by two reviewers (FW, JC). We aimed to achieve at least 90% agreement before proceeding to single reviewer screening. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or, if necessary, a third independent reviewer (EL).

The full text of potentially eligible studies were retrieved and assessed in line with the criteria outlined above by one reviewer (FW, JC or EL). The initial 20% of potentially eligible studies were assessed by two reviewers (FW, JC or EL). At least 90% agreement was achieved before proceeding with single reviewer screening.

Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion, with involvement of a third review author where necessary.

3.1.4. Assessment of identified systematic reviews

Identified systematic reviews were considered for the rapid review both as the primary source of evidence and as a source of RCTs.

Starting with the most recent published reviews, identified systematic reviews were assessed for their applicability, and those eligible were quality assessed using published tools (see Risk of Bias section 3.1.6). Systematic reviews of good quality that closely match the review protocol were extracted rather than extracting from the primary studies. Where a good quality review was found, earlier reviews with largely overlapping scope and RCTs covered by the review were not assessed or extracted.

As no good quality, applicable systematic reviews were identified for all interventions, and because there were evidence gaps (for example missing interventions or outcomes) in the systematic reviews, we conducted searches for RCTs following the methods described above.

All references identified by the searches and from other sources were uploaded into Endnote and de-duplicated.

3.1.5. Data extraction

A pre-piloted and standardised form was used to extract data from studies. All extractions were checked by a second reviewer.

Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion, with involvement of a third review author where necessary.

3.1.6. Risk of bias assessment

The quality of included systematic reviews and RCTs were assessed by one reviewer, with the initial 20% assessed by a second reviewer to ensure that consistency was achieved. For systematic reviews we used the tool produced by the Joanna Briggs Institute (https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools); for RCTs we used the Cochrane RoB tool consistent with the identified systematic reviews. Risk of bias was assessed for each trial and for individual outcomes of importance to the review question; a summary of the risk of bias assessment is presented by the type of intervention. For RCTs included in the Smedemark 2022 Cochrane review,16 we used the judgements by the Cochrane review authors for study level bias and conducted new assessments for outcomes relevant to the present review.

We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE assessment (risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision and publication bias) for the key outcomes of:

  • 7- or 28-day mortality
  • escalation of care (including unplanned admission)
  • hospital admission (immediately after triage or at 28 days)

One reviewer undertook the GRADE assessment, and this was checked by a second reviewer.

3.1.7. Evidence Synthesis

All included RCTs were tabulated and summarised narratively.

Meta-analysis of clinical effectiveness outcomes was performed when sufficient data from reasonably homogeneous studies were available. This was guided by study design, population, outcomes, and risk of bias assessment. A sample size adjustment was made to cluster randomised trials before they were included in a meta-analysis or forest plot with individually randomised trials. We followed methods in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for calculating the effective sample size.17 The adjustment was done by dividing the total numbers in each arm and the event numbers in each arm by the ‘design effect’. The design effect for each cluster randomised trial was calculated using the formula:

1+(M1)×ICC
where M is the average cluster size and ICC is the intracluster correlation coefficient.

Random effects models were fitted using the DerSimonian and Laird method in the metan command in Stata version 17. Alternative methods for performing random-effects meta-analyses were explored because no single approach is universally preferable.18 Inconsistency across studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. Due to insufficient number of studies (<10) in each meta-analysis, funnel plots were not constructed to assess small study effects. We did not attempt to contact authors to get pertinent missing data due to a lack of time.

3.1.8. Analysis of sub-groups

We pre-specified that stratified data for the following subgroups were to be considered for subgroup analyses irrespective of statistical heterogeneity:

  • Age of patient (65 years and under, 66 – 80 years, over 80 years)
  • Presence of chronic co-morbidity (for example, COPD)
  • Pregnancy & post-partum (up to 28 days)

Only data stratified by the presence or absence of COPD were available among included studies.

3.1.9. Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of co-morbidity, setting and test availability on the main analyses.

3.2. Cost Effectiveness Review

3.2.1. Search Strategy

Searches combined the concepts of: a) acute respiratory infections, b) near patient, rapid tests (or, more broadly, diagnostics and testing), and c) cost utility.

Searches for cost utility studies were conducted in the following databases in May 2023:

  • MEDLINE (Ovid), from inception
  • Embase (Ovid), from inception
  • CEA registry, from inception

A precise, yet highly sensitive cost utility study filter was used in Embase and Medline.19 See Appendix 2 for our full record of searches. Our search was developed iteratively in MEDLINE. The final version finds a known systematic review,20 and 13 studies included in it that were likely to be relevant to our research question. No date limit was applied.

References identified by the project team via highly targeted searches during the scoping phase were also reviewed.

Searches were restricted to English language and humans, and excluded:

  • Dissertations and theses
  • Conference abstracts
  • Editorials, letters, news items and commentaries

Pre-print sources were not searched.

References of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were checked.

3.2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review were the same as the clinical-effectiveness review in terms of the population, intervention, and comparator eligible (see section 3.1.2). The exclusion criteria in terms of study design were also the same. The inclusion criteria for relevant outcomes and study designs differed and are described here.

3.2.2.1. Outcomes
Inclusion criteria
  • Incremental cost (NHS and personal social services perspective)
  • Life-years gained
  • Incremental QALYs
  • Incremental DALYS
  • ICER/ cost per QALY
  • Incremental net health/monetary benefit
3.2.2.2. Study Designs
Inclusion criteria
  • Systematic reviews of economic evaluations
  • Economic evaluations which included a cost utility study

3.2.3. Screening

Initial screening of titles and abstracts, followed by full text screening was carried out using Rayyan https://www.rayyan.ai/).21 All records at both phases of screening were assessed by two independent reviewers (BS and KS), blinded to each other’s decisions. Any conflicting screening decisions were resolved through discussion, with a third independent reviewer (YFC) if needed.

3.2.4. Data extraction

3.2.5. Applicability and Critical Appraisal

For systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness studies, we used the tool produced by the Joanna Briggs Institute (https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools) to assess the quality of the review. We then provide a narrative description of their applicability to our review question.

To assess the quality of included cost utility studies, we used the Drummond checklist.22 We also used Section 1 of the NICE appraisal checklist for economic evaluations to assess the applicability of each study to our review question.23 This was done by one reviewer (KS), and then checked by a second reviewer (BS).

3.2.6. Evidence Synthesis

All included systematic reviews and cost utility studies were tabulated and summarised narratively.

4. Results

4.1. Clinical effectiveness review results

4.1.1. Results of the search

4.1.1.1. Systematic reviews

A systematic search carried out to identify potentially relevant systematic reviews found 1355 references (see Appendix 2 for the literature search strategy).

These 1355 references were screened at title and abstract level against the review protocol, with 1292 excluded at this level. Twenty percent of references were screened separately by two reviewers with 96.6% agreement. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. An additional seven references were identified through examining reference lists.

The full texts of 70 systematic reviews were ordered for closer inspection. Five of these systematic reviews reported synthesised evidence relevant to the review protocol; four of the earlier reviews had largely overlapping scopes and RCTs covered by the most recent review and were not quality assessed or extracted. One systematic review was included as a source of data only (Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3).

The systematic review evidence selection is presented as a PRISMA diagram in Appendix 3.

Details of reviews excluded at full text, along with reasons for exclusion are given in Appendix 4.

4.1.1.2. RCTs

A systematic search carried out to identify potentially relevant studies found 2341 references (see Appendix 2 for the literature search strategy).

These 2341 references were screened at title and abstract level against the review protocol, with 2265 excluded at this level. 20% of references were screened separately by two reviewers with 98.8% agreement. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. An additional 42 references were identified through examining reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.

The full texts of 118 records were ordered for closer inspection. Fourteen of these studies met the criteria specified in the review protocol.

The clinical evidence study selection is presented as a PRISMA diagram in Appendix 5.

See Table 1, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 7 for the full references of the included studies and Appendix 6 for the data extraction of the 14 included studies.

Details of studies excluded at full text, along with reasons for exclusion are given in Appendix 7

No eligible evidence was identified for the following tests specified in the review protocol:

  • Rapid PCR tests
  • Urinary antigen tests
  • Serum sodium
  • Urea nitrogen
  • Partial pressure O2
  • Blood gases
  • Full blood count
  • White blood cell count
  • Myxovirus resistance protein A
  • TNF-related apoptosis-induced ligand (TRAIL)

4.1.2. C-reactive protein

A recent systematic review16 assessed POC biomarker tests to guide antibiotic treatment in people with ARI in primary care settings regardless of age. The scope differed from the present review in terms of patient age, setting, interventions and outcomes, but provided a subgroup meta-analysis for the effect of CRP testing on antibiotic use in adults. On closer inspection, we could not replicate the computation of the effective sample size for some of the cluster RCTs (Appendix 8), therefore we conducted new meta-analyses of outcomes for this test. The systematic review was used as a source of data for the relevant primary studies, in addition to the primary publications of the studies.

Ten RCTs (four of which were cluster RCTs) compared CRP POCT with usual care to guide antibiotic decisions (Table 1 and Appendix 6). All ten RCTs were included in the Smedemark 2022 review.16 Date of publication ranged from 1995 to 2021, with only three of the primary reports published in the past 5 years. One study was conducted in the UK,24 and another study was conducted in Europe, including the UK.25 Three studies were conducted in The Netherlands,2628 and the remaining studies were conducted in each of Russia,29 Thailand and Myanmar,30 Denmark,31 Norway32 and North Vietnam.33 Study sample sizes ranged from 17929 to 1932 adults.25

Five of the studies assessed a test not currently available in the UK (Nycocard II CRP point-of-care testing),26, 3033 however a pragmatic decision was taken to include these studies. Two tests that are currently available in the UK were assessed: Afinion CRP point-of-care testing (two studies24, 29) and QuikRead CRP (three studies25, 27, 28).

Eight studies were conducted in a primary care setting,2426, 28, 29, 3133 one in primary care and outpatients,30 and one study was conducted in nursing homes.27 There were some differences in the populations eligible for inclusion in the studies. Most included people with acute LRTI or upper or lower RTI, using slightly differing definitions, however Butler 201924 limited inclusion to people with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) (Table 1). Three studies included children in their population; Do 201633 presented subgroup data for adults in their study of non-severe ARI, while Althaus 201930 and Diederichsen 200031) provided raw data for adults with ARI to Smedemark 2022.16

Three studies received funding or test kits from the manufacturer.28, 29, 32

4.1.2.1. Risk of bias in included CRP studies

The overall risk of bias was considered high for all ten studies assessing CRP POC tests because of the lack of blinding of participants and personnel (Appendix 9).2433 In addition, six studies were considered to have an unclear risk of selection bias due to unclear allocation concealment,2527, 29, 31, 32 and four studies were considered to be at high risk of bias because of ‘other bias.’2527, 29 One study was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding in the assessment of ‘other outcomes’.32 Based on reviewer’s judgments, one study was considered at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data reporting for 7- or 28-day mortality and hospital admission (immediately after triage or at 28 days).27 Two studies were at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome reporting for ‘other outcomes’ (i.e. antibiotic/antiviral use, hospital length of stay, follow-up consultation/ongoing monitoring, time to clinical cure/resolution of symptoms, and HRQoL).24, 33 Risk of bias for other domains (e.g. random sequence generation and selective reporting) were considered to be low or unclear (Appendix 9).

Table 1. Characteriscs of included studies for C-reacve protein point of care tests.

Table 1

Characteriscs of included studies for C-reacve protein point of care tests.

4.1.2.2. Hospital admission (immediately after triage or at 28 days)

No eligible evidence was identified for hospital admission immediately after triage.

Four cluster RCTs2527, 29 and two individual RCTs24, 28 reported data on hospital admissions at varying timepoints (where reported), ranging from two weeks29 to six months.24 It was not possible to calculate risk ratios for two cluster-RCTs26, 29 and one individual RCT28 due to zero events in both intervention arms. Three RCTs provided data allowing calculation of risk ratios: two cluster-RCTs with follow-up between 3-4 week reported very few events;25, 27 one RCT with follow-up at 6 months showed no difference between CRP and usual care groups, RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.59; 1 RCT, n=605; very low certainty evidence).24

Meta-analysis was not conducted for the studies reporting hospital admissions due to the very different duration of follow-up. However, data are presented as a forest plot in Figure 1.

Figure 1. CRP POCT vs usual care - Hospital Admission.

Figure 1

CRP POCT vs usual care - Hospital Admission.

4.1.2.3. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Re-consultation/appointment

Three cluster RCTs25, 26, 29 and one individual RCT28 reported data on the number of re-consultations at 14 days,29 or at 28 days,26, 28 or re-consultations due to ‘new or worsening symptoms’ within 28 days.25 The pooled result for all included studies showed that CRP POCT may increase the risk of needing a re-consultation compared to usual care (Figure 2): RR 1.61 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.41, I2=56.6%; 4 RCTs/cluster-RCTs, n=1,433; very low certainty evidence).

Figure 2. CRP POCT vs usual care - Escalation of care: number of re-consultations.

Figure 2

CRP POCT vs usual care - Escalation of care: number of re-consultations.

4.1.2.4. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Virtual Ward

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.2.5. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Emergency department visit

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.2.6. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Unplanned hospital admission

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.2.7. Hospital length of stay

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.2.8. Follow-up consultation/ongoing monitoring

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.2.9. Antibiotic/antiviral use

Three cluster RCTs26, 27, 29 and six individual RCTs24, 28, 3033 provided evidence on the number of antibiotics prescribed at index consultation. The pooled result for all included studies showed CRP POCT may reduce the risk of antibiotic prescribing at index consultation compared to usual care (Figure 3): RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.84, I2=54.7%; 9 RCTs/cluster-RCTs, n=4,027). Heterogeneity among estimated effects between individually randomised trials.

In contrast to the Smedemark 2022 review,16 data on antibiotics prescribed at index consultation for Little 201325 and Little 201937 were excluded from meta-analysis in the current review because it was clear from Little 201937 that the data related to antibiotics prescribed at 3 months. The data reported at three months also appeared to be based on GP practices, suggesting the data reported was not necessarily follow-up of the same patients initially included in the study (see Appendix 8).

Figure 3. CRP POCT vs usual care - Antibiotics prescribed at index consultation.

Figure 3

CRP POCT vs usual care - Antibiotics prescribed at index consultation.

Two cluster RCTs26, 29 and four individual RCTs24, 28, 32, 33 also provided evidence on the number of antibiotics prescribed within 14 or 28 days. The pooled result for all included studies showed that CRP POCT may reduce the risk of antibiotic prescribing within 14 or 28 days compared to usual care (Figure 4): RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85, I2=24.4%; 6 RCTs/cluster-RCTs, n=2,251).

Figure 4. CRP POCT vs usual care - Antibiotics prescribed within 28 days.

Figure 4

CRP POCT vs usual care - Antibiotics prescribed within 28 days.

Three studies reported additional data relating to antibiotic use or changes to antibiotic treatment that could not be meta-analysed.24, 27, 33, 34 Butler 201924, 34 assessed patient-reported antibiotic use for an AECOPD within four weeks after randomisation and found a reduction in antibiotic consumption in the CRP group (57.0%) compared to the usual care group (77.4%): adjusted OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.47; 1 RCT, n=537).

Boere 202127 found that antibiotic treatment changes (start, cessation, switch, or prolongation) occurred less frequently in the CRP group during follow-up (12.2%) compared with usual care group (16.8%), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.08; 1 cluster-RCT); Do 201633 found a small difference between the CRP group and usual care group in terms of subsequent antibiotic use in those without an immediate antibiotic prescription, 30.0% versus 34.2% respectively, OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.17; 1 RCT, n=386), and a small increase in terms of antibiotic management changes in those without an immediate antibiotic prescription between the CRP group (8.6%) and usual care group (4.6%): OR 1.99 (95% CI 0.86 to 4.64; 1 RCT, n=430). All the above evidence was highly uncertain.

4.1.2.10. Time to clinical cure/resolution of symptoms

Three studies provided evidence on time to resolution of symptoms/time to full recovery (Table 2).16, 25, 28, 33

Do 2016 and Little 2013 found no significant difference between the CRP and usual care groups in time to resolution of symptoms/moderately bad symptoms: HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 1 RCT)33 and adjusted HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 1 cluster-RCT)16, 25

Similarly, Cals 2010 found little difference between the CRP and usual care groups in terms of patient reported time to full recovery for patients with lower RTI (CRP mean 17.5 days (SD 9.2), usual care mean 19.8 days (SD 9.5); 1 cluster-RCT, n=100) or patients with rhinosinusitis (CRP mean 17.3 days (SD 9.3) and usual care mean 16.6 days (SD 9.9); 1 cluster-RCT, n=143).28

In addition, five studies provided evidence on the number of patients substantially improved (Table 3). Two studies reported the number of patients substantially improved within 7 days, with both studies showing no significant differences between CRP and usual care groups: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.18; 1 RCT, n=230)16, 32 and RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.18; 1 RCT, n=243)16, 28

One study reported a similar proportion of patients fully or almost recovered within 14 days between the CRP group (91.1%; n=101, original sample size) and usual care group (92.3%; n=78, original sample size).29 16, 29

One study found no significant difference in the number of patients fully recovered within 3 weeks between the CRP group (86.4%) and usual care group (90.8%), OR 0.49 (0.21 to 1.12).27 The sample sizes these proportions were based on were unclear and did not align with the original sample sizes in each group.

Two studies reporting on the number of patients substantially improved at 28 days found no significant difference between the CRP group and usual care group: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.78; 1 cluster-RCT [modified sample size due to cluster level data, n=124)16, 26 and RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.29; 1 RCT, n=219).16, 32

Table 2. CRP POCT vs usual care - Time to resoluon of symptoms/me to full recovery.

Table 2

CRP POCT vs usual care - Time to resoluon of symptoms/me to full recovery.

Table 3. CRP POCT vs usual care - Number of paents substanally improved.

Table 3

CRP POCT vs usual care - Number of paents substanally improved.

4.1.2.11. Mortality

Three cluster RCTs2527 and three individual RCTs24, 28, 33 provided evidence on mortality rates at varying timepoints. It was not possible to calculate risk ratios for two cluster-RCTs25, 26 and two individual RCTs28, 33 due to zero events in both intervention and usual care arms. Two RCTs provided data to calculate risk ratios but the event rates were very low.24, 27

Meta-analysis was not conducted, however, data are presented as a forest plot in Figure 5.

Figure 5. CRP POCT vs usual care - Mortality.

Figure 5

CRP POCT vs usual care - Mortality.

4.1.2.12. HRQoL

One UK study reported HRQoL (Appendix 6, Table 11), measured using the EQ-5D-5L index value, EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS; with scores ranging from 0 to 100 and higher scores indicating better health), and the CRQ-SAS which measures disease-specific health-related quality of life, including domains for dyspnoea, fatigue, emotional functioning and mastery (scores range from 1 to 7 with higher scores indicating better patient outcomes for each domain).24

No differences were found between patients in the CRP group compared with patients in the usual care group for EQ-5D-5L index values measured across different timepoints (i.e. at weeks 1, 2 and 4, and at 6 months): adjusted mean difference 0.03 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.09; 1 RCT). By contrast, EQ-5D VAS scores were 3 points higher in the CRP group compared to usual care group measured across different timepoints (i.e. at weeks 1, 2 and 4, and at 6 months): adjusted mean difference 3.12 (95% CI 0.50 to 5.74; 1 RCT).24

No differences were found between the CRP and usual care groups for any CRQ-SAS domain at 6 month follow-up: adjusted mean difference for dyspnoea domain 0.06 (95% CI −0.20 to 0.33; 1 RCT, n=399); adjusted mean difference for fatigue domain 0.13 (95% CI −0.12 to 0.38; 1 RCT, n=436); adjusted mean difference for emotional function domain 0.15 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.34; 1 RCT, n=441); adjusted mean difference for mastery domain −0.09 (95% CI −0.18 to 0.01; 1 RCT, n=435).24

4.1.2.13. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses for clinical effectiveness outcomes

Only one subgroup analysis was performed due to limited data. This subgroup analysis of antibiotics prescribed at index consultation included only patients with COPD.24, 27 Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of excluding one study each in patients with AECOPD24 or in a nursing home setting,27 on antibiotics prescribed at index consultation or at 28 days. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to assess the impact of excluding studies using tests that are unavailable in the UK on antibiotics prescribed at index consultation, within 28 days, or on the escalation of care.26, 3033 I Findings for subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions inferred from the main analyses (Appendix 11).

4.1.3. Procalcitonin

The recent systematic review16 assessed POC biomarker tests to guide antibiotic treatment in people with ARI in primary care settings regardless of age. The scope differed from the present review in terms of patient age, setting, interventions and outcomes, but provided data for one included cluster RCT on the effects of procalcitonin testing.38 The systematic review was used as a source of data for the RCT, in addition to the primary publication of the RCT. No additional RCTs were identified by our searches.

The RCT assessed the use of POC procalcitonin (BRAHMS PCT direct point-of-care test) to guide antibiotic decisions in adults with acute cough in a primary care setting in Switzerland (Table 4 and Appendix 6).38

Funding was non-commercial, although test kits were provided by the manufacturer.

4.1.3.1. Risk of bias in included procalcitonin study

Based on the Cochrane Review assessment,16 the single study assessing procalcitonin38 was considered to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel, and selection bias due to unclear allocation concealment and lack of individual randomisation. The remaining risk of bias domains were considered to be low or unclear risk. Based on reviewer’s judgements, the study was also at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome reporting for 7- or 28-day mortality (Appendix 9).

Table 4. Characteriscs of included studies for procalcitonin tests.

Table 4

Characteriscs of included studies for procalcitonin tests.

4.1.3.2. Hospital admission (immediately after triage or at 28 days)

No difference was found between procalcitonin and usual care in the number of patients in need of hospital admission within 7 days follow-up (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.51; 1 cluster-RCT, n=277, very low certainty evidence).16, 38

4.1.3.3. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Re-consultation/appointment

No difference was found between procalcitonin and usual care in the number of adults in need of a re-consultation within 28 days follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.46; 1 cluster-RCT, n=317; very low certainty evidence).16, 38

4.1.3.4. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Virtual Ward

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.3.5. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Emergency department visit

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.3.6. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Unplanned hospital admission

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.3.7. Hospital length of stay

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.3.8. Follow-up consultation/ongoing monitoring

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.3.9. Antibiotic/antiviral use

At the index consultation, antibiotic prescriptions were substantially lower in the procalcitonin group compared to usual care group (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.44; 1 cluster-RCT, n=317).16, 38

Similarly, the number of antibiotic prescriptions was substantially lower in the procalcitonin group compared to the usual care group within 7 days (29.7% versus 61.5%, respectively; 1 cluster-RCT, n=317) and within 28 days follow-up (40.0% versus 70.5%, respectively; 1 cluster-RCT, n=277).38

4.1.3.10. Time to clinical cure/resolution of symptoms

No difference in median duration of symptoms by day 28 between the procalcitonin group (8 days) and usual care group (7 days): HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.04; 1 cluster-RCT, n=261).38

4.1.3.11. Mortality

No deaths occurred in the procalcitonin group (0/163) or usual care group (0/114); 1 cluster-RCT, n=317; very low certainty evidence).38

4.1.3.12. HRQoL

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4. Rapid antigen test - Group A Streptococcus tests

Two cluster RCTs assessed the effects of RADT Group A Streptococcus tests in adults with acute sore throat (RADT OSOM® Strep A39 and RADT Clearview® Exact Strep A (Table 5 and Appendix 6).40 The studies were conducted in 2011 and 2007, in Spain and Canada, respectively. Sample sizes in the relevant intervention groups were 55739 and 261.40 One of the studies included people aged 14 years or over,39 which is different from the present review criteria, but a pragmatic decision was made to include it as the difference is only slight. Funding was non-commercial in one study39 and not reported in the other study.40

4.1.4.1. Risk of bias in included of Group A Streptococcus tests studies

The two studies that assessed Group A Streptococcus tests were considered to be at high risk of bias according to reviewers’ judgements, due to high risk of selection bias (lack of allocation concealment in both studies and inadequate sequence generation in one study) and high risk for ‘other bias’ (Appendix 9).39, 40 In addition, one study was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel.39

Table 5. Characteriscs of included studies for Group A Streptococcus tests.

Table 5

Characteriscs of included studies for Group A Streptococcus tests.

4.1.4.2. Hospital admission (immediately after triage or at 28 days)

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.3. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Re-consultation/appointment

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.4. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Virtual Ward

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.5. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Emergency department visit

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.6. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Unplanned hospital admission

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.7. Hospital length of stay

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.8. Follow-up consultation/ongoing monitoring

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.9. Antibiotic/antiviral use

Two cluster-RCTs found that antibiotic prescriptions were substantially lower in the RADT group compared to usual care group at the index consultation: 43.8% in the RADT group versus 64.1% in the usual care group; p<0.001 (1 cluster-RCT, n=543)39 and 26.7% in the RADT group versus 58.2% in the usual care group; p<0.001 (1 cluster-RCT, n=261) (Table 6).40 Neither trial reported data allowing for adjustment of sample sizes for clustering effect.

Table 6. Rapid angen detecon test versus usual care - Anbioc prescripons at index consultaon.

Table 6

Rapid angen detecon test versus usual care - Anbioc prescripons at index consultaon.

4.1.4.10. Time to clinical cure/resolution of symptoms

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.11. Mortality

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.4.12. HRQoL

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5. Rapid antigen test – Influenza tests

One RCT (n= 93) conducted in Switzerland in 2015 assessed the effects of an influenza RADT in adults with an influenza-like illness after returning from a trip abroad (Table 7 and Appendix 6). The test used, BD DirectigenTM Flu A + B rapid test, is not currently available in the UK.41

The source of funding was not reported. The trial was terminated early due to low sensitivity of the intervention.

4.1.5.1. Risk of bias in included study of influenza tests

The single study assessing an influenza test41 was judged by reviewers to be at high risk of bias due to selection bias (limitations in methods used for random sequence generation and allocation concealment), the lack of blinding of participants and personnel, and high risk due to ‘other bias’ (Appendix 9).

Table 7. Characteriscs of included study for Influenza tests.

Table 7

Characteriscs of included study for Influenza tests.

4.1.5.2. Hospital admission (immediately after triage or at 28 days)

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5.3. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Re-consultation/appointment

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5.4. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Virtual Ward

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5.5. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Emergency department visit

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5.6. Escalation of care (some time after initial consultation): Unplanned hospital admission

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5.7. Hospital length of stay

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5.8. Follow-up consultation/ongoing monitoring

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5.9. Antibiotic/antiviral use

No significant difference was found between RADT and usual care in the number of adults prescribed antibiotics: 23.3% in the RADT group versus 39.4% in the usual care group; p=0.15 (1 RCT, n=93).41 No patient received antiviral treatment.

4.1.5.10. Time to clinical cure/resolution of symptoms

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.5.11. Mortality

No deaths occurred in the RADT group (0/60) or usual care group (0/33) (1 RCT, n=93; very low certainty evidence).41.

4.1.5.12. HRQoL

No eligible evidence was identified for this outcome.

4.1.6. GRADE

Appendix 10 provides the GRADE summary of the overall evidence for the included tests.

4.2. Cost effectiveness review results

4.2.1. Search Results

The titles and abstracts of 1,600 records were screened, of which 77 records were identified as potentially meeting the eligibility criteria and were identified for full text review. The full text for one record43 could not be retrieved by our library, but we are confident that it is highly unlikely to be relevant given that the title indicates it is an erratum to a previous paper and the page numbers suggest it is just one page long, and thus unlikely to report a full economic evaluation. The reasons for exclusion at full text stage are described in Figure 6, with the full references and reasons available in Appendix 13.

Figure 6. PRISMA flowchart for the selection of systematic reviews and cost utility studies.

Figure 6

PRISMA flowchart for the selection of systematic reviews and cost utility studies.

No eligible additional references were identified through examining reference lists.

Two systematic reviews20, 44 and 16 individual cost-utility studies34, 4559 met the pre-defined the eligibility criteria (Figure 6).

4.2.2. Narrative summary, appraisal and applicability – Systematic Reviews

Two potentially relevant systematic reviews were identified.20, 44 Here we briefly summarise each review, focusing largely on whether these reviews are likely to have captured all the cost utility studies relevant to our review question.

Van der Pol 2021

The main objective of this review20 was ‘to review the methods used in economic evaluations of applied diagnostic techniques, for all patients seeking care for infectious diseases of the respiratory tract’. The searches were limited to articles published between January 2000 and May 2020. The review included cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses and cost-minimisation analyses, as long as patient-relevant outcomes were included. Diagnostic strategies were defined as “identifying the most likely cause of, and optionally optimal treatment for, a previously undetected disease in a clinically suspect patient who is seeking care”. Of the 70 studies included in the review, 23 evaluated rapid diagnostic tests, which included rapid influenza tests, C-reactive protein tests and procalcitonin tests. Other strategies evaluated included traditional diagnostics (n=26), Xpert (n=19) and clinical rules (n=9).

The quality of the review was assessed using a critical appraisal checklist (for full details see Appendix 12). The key issues identified were that 1) the search strategy used terms which are likely to be inconsistently used in the literature e.g. “diagnostic” and was limited in breadth, 2) the grey literature was not searched, 3) the CHEERS checklist60 was used to create a quality score for the included studies, but this is a reporting checklist rather than a quality appraisal tool, and 4) only 10% of the data extraction was done by two independent reviewers.

Data extraction focused on the methodology used in each economic evaluation, in line with the objective of the review. Data relating to study results were not extracted. Given the different review objective, the wider scope and the issues identified through the quality assessment, it was decided that this review is a useful source of relevant cost utility studies, but the review itself could not be used in isolation to answer our review question. The findings of the Van der Pol review do however provide useful and very relevant discussion about the methodological strengths and limitations of cost-effectiveness research in this area, which we will refer to heavily in the discussion of this report.20

Wubishet 2022

The main objective of the Wubishet 2022 review44 was to summarise and critically appraise the quality of published economic evaluations focused on interventions which promote antimicrobial stewardship or aim to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in primary care. Full or partial economic evaluations of one or more antimicrobial stewardship intervention evaluated in a primary care setting were included. There were no restrictions on the type of intervention evaluated, the study population or the type of infection under consideration, or the comparator. Twelve studies were included in the review; 10 of which focused on inappropriate prescribing for upper/lower/acute respiratory tract infection. Six of the included studies focused on adults specifically, with a further 4 studies including both children and adults in their evaluation. Six of the included studies evaluated a strategy which involved the use of POC CRP testing.

The quality of the review was assessed using a critical appraisal checklist (for full details see Appendix 12). The key issues identified were 1) the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review were not clearly stated, 2) the search strategy was very limited, particularly with regards to the terms relating to the intervention, 3) it was unclear whether the critical appraisal had been done in duplicate, 4) the discussion in the review did not discuss the implications of the results on future practice/policy.

The data extraction focused on the methods used in each study and the findings of each study. Given the different review objective, the different (albeit overlapping) target interventions and the issues identified through the quality assessment, it was decided that this review is a useful source of relevant cost-utility studies, but the review itself could not be used in isolation to answer our review question.

4.2.3. Cost utility studies – study characteristics

The references for the included studies in the two systematic reviews were checked against our search results to ensure we have captured all relevant studies in our searches for cost utility studies. Our search identified all of the relevant (i.e. cost utility studies) in the Van der Pol 2021 review.20 There were also no additional relevant studies from those included in the Wubishet 2022 review.44

Table 8. Characteriscs of included cost ulity studies.

Table 8

Characteriscs of included cost ulity studies.

Details of the study characteristics for all 16 included cost utility studies can be found in Table 8. Three of the included cost-utility studies were economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials.34, 50, 54. The majority of the remaining studies were model-based evaluations, 11 of which were decision trees,4548, 5153, 5659 and one study used a combination of a decision tree to capture the short-term diagnostic pathway and a Markov model to capture longer term outcomes and costs.49 One study was an economic evaluation based on an observational study.55 The majority of the studies selected a relatively short time horizon to estimate costs and consequences, four studies adopted a time horizon of 28 days,48, 50, 54, 55 and two stated that an episode of illness or treatment episode was the time horizon. One study reported a model which had been developed using data largely from a trial, Cals 2013,35 with 3 years follow-up.49

Seven of the included evaluations were for a UK/England and Wales setting, with a further six developed for a US setting and one in each of Hong Kong, Sweden/Norway, Canada and Thailand. The economic evaluations focused on patients presenting at a range of settings, with many studies (n=7/16) focusing solely or partially on primary care.34, 4650, 55 There were a further six studies conducted for a US population where the setting was not clearly stated, but looked likely to be focused on a primary care setting.45, 53, 5658 Five studies focused their evaluation either solely or partially on a secondary care setting, including ambulatory care, outpatient, or emergency departments.47, 51, 52, 54, 59

A wide range of different rapid tests were evaluated, the most common of which being POCT for CRP (n=4/17),34, 48, 49, 55 and rapid tests for influenza (n=5/17).54, 5659 A range of different comparators were used across the evaluations, with standard care being the most commonly included.

Six of the included studies evaluated rapid tests for influenza.51, 54, 5659 Three of these studies were conducted for a US population and the focus was mainly on evaluating different antiviral treatments rather than the use of rapid testing (although rapid testing vs. no rapid testing was included as a comparator)5658. Nicholson 2014 evaluated multiple tests (rapid molecular and near-patient diagnostic tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and Streptococcus pneumoniae infections) in a UK RCT to evaluate the impact on prescribing and clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.54

Four of the included studies focused on the use of rapid tests to manage individuals presenting with symptoms suggestive of Group A streptococcus pharyngitis (GAS).45, 47, 50, 53. One of these studies was a model, developed for a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, informed by an extensive systematic review of the evidence (diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and economic evaluations) for 21 different point of care tests for detecting group A Streptococcus bacteria (14 of these tests featured in the economic evaluation).47 Another of these studies was an economic evaluation alongside an RCT conducted in the UK.50

One of the included studies focused specifically on a sub-group of patients, those who are diagnosed COPD and experiencing an exacerbation.34 This study was an economic evaluation conducted alongside a RCT34.

4.2.4. Cost utility studies – applicability

The applicability of the included studies was assessed using the first section of the NICE appraisal checklist for economic evaluations (see Appendix 14 for details).23

Six of the included studies were judged to be directly applicable to our review question, four of which evaluated the cost-effectiveness of POC CRP.34, 4749, 54, 55 Fraser 2020 undertook an extensive systematic review of the evidence of 21 different point of care tests for Group A streptococcus.47 Nicholson 2014 evaluated rapid near-patient tests for Influenza A and B and pneumococcal infection.54

Two studies were judged to be partially applicable to our review question.50, 52 Little 2014 is an RCT-based economic evaluation focused on a rapid test for A/C/G streptococci in conjunction with the FeverPAIN clinical scoring algorithm.50 The trial included both adults and children which deviates from our review question, but the results may still be relevant. Michaelidis 2012 evaluated the cost-effectiveness of point of care procalcitonin (POC PCT) in a US outpatient setting from a healthcare system perspective.52 Despite the difference in country, as the only economic evaluation focused on this test in a relevant setting to our review question, we assessed this study as potentially providing some useful evidence.

The remaining studies were scored as being not applicable to our review question.45, 46, 51, 53, 5659 These studies were all focused on non-UK settings.

4.3. Results of included cost utility studies

The main results of the included cost utility studies are presented in Table 9. Here we will focus on the studies assessed as being either directly or partially applicable to our review question.

Three directly applicable studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of POC CRP in patients presenting to primary care with symptoms suggestive of ARI. All studies found POC CRP to be cost-effective.48, 49, 55 Despite being cost-effective, Oppoing 2013 warned about the potential resource implications of widespread use. Holmes 2018 addresses this issue in their evaluation by comparing POC CRP testing and treatment in line with NICE CG191 clinical recommendations i.e. test only when clinical assessment is not conclusive and do not routinely offer antibiotics if CRP is <20mg/L, and offer a delayed prescription if CRP is between 20-100mg/L, compared to pragmatic use of POC CRP.61 They found that allowing POC CRP to be used pragmatically in primary care led to it being borderline cost-effective, but by adhering to guidelines around usage, the model predicted a far lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A further study evaluated POC CRP specifically in patients experiencing a COPD exacerbation and found that POC CRP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold £20,000 per QALY.34

Michaelidis 2014 conducted a model-based economic evaluation of POC PCT, concluding that POC PCT could be cost-effective if the cost of antimicrobial resistance is factored into the analysis and if the test is only used in those judged to require antibiotics. The authors attempt to estimate the cost of antibiotic resistance per antibiotic prescribed for outpatient management of ARI in adults, but in the absence of methodological guidance on this issue, the validity of these estimates is unclear.52

Fraser 2020 evaluated 14 different point of care (POC) tests for Group A streptococcus (GAS) and found that none of the POC tests evaluated were cost-effective compared with usual care in both a primary care and secondary setting.47 Little 2014 conducted an RCT-based economic evaluation of a rapid antigen test (IMI TestPack Plus Strep A, Inverness Medical, Bedford, UK) for A/C/G streptococci and concluded that the use of a clinical algorithm alone is most likely to be cost-effective compared to using the rapid test in combination with the clinical algorithm.

Nicholson 2014 evaluated two POCTs (Quidel for influenza, and BinaxNOW for the pneumococcal antigen) in an RCT compared to laboratory-based PCR and traditional culture/serology and found that, although the POCTs had the highest gain in terms of QALYs, it did not fall below a cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000 compared to laboratory-based PCR.

Table 9. Data extracon for cost-ulity studies - results.

Table 9

Data extracon for cost-ulity studies - results.

4.4. Critical appraisal of included cost utility studies

The results of the critical appraisal using the Drummond 2015 checklist22 can be found in Table 10. We adapted question 4 of the appraisal tool slightly (Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences for each alternative identified?) to allow us to answer this question separately for short-term, long-term and antimicrobial resistance-related costs separately. We felt this was important additional detail for these studies given that the majority had a short-term time horizon.

The short time horizon of many of the studies was consistently highlighted as a limitation, specifically the lack of robust data to inform longer-term projections. Despite concluding that POC CRP is cost-effective, three of the four economic evaluations focused on this test were limited to capturing short-term costs and consequences.34, 48, 55 Hunter 2015 however did base their analysis of POC CRP on longer-term (3 year) data from an RCT and also found it to be cost-effective.49

A key motivation for rapid testing is to reduce future antimicrobial resistance (AMR) associated with unnecessary antibiotic prescribing to limit, yet there is no standardised, recommended methodology for estimating the costs and consequences associated with AMR in an economic evaluation. Logically, this is an oversight of a key potential benefit, both in terms of reducing long-term costs and improving patient outcomes (or avoiding patient harm). Two studies did make some attempt to incorporate an estimated cost associated with AMR into their sensitivity analyses, but the validity of their calculations was unclear.46, 48.

Another key potential benefit or harm of rapid, point of care testing is the potential effect it has on patient behaviour over time. Patients may be discouraged from attending their GP in future, having received a POC CRP if they feel they are less likely to be prescribed antibiotics. Conversely, the ability to get a ‘quick answer’ may actually result in more patients with ARI symptoms attending their GP over time. Cals et al. (2013), a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial, is the only trial in the UK with long enough follow-up and the appropriate study design to assess this longer-term implication.35 Although the mean number of episodes of respiratory tract infections during follow-up was lower for the POC CRP arm compared to no CRP, the difference was not statistically significant. Hunter et al. (2015) was the only study to incorporate this data into their evaluation, and rightly noted that any harms associated with reduced attendance will not have been captured in their analysis.49

Many of the other studies lacked robust underpinning evidence on effectiveness. Adjustment for differential timing was rarely an applicable problem for these studies due to the short-term nature (1 year or less) of most evaluations.

Table 10. Crical appraisal of included cost ulity studies.

Table 10

Crical appraisal of included cost ulity studies.

5. References

1.
NHS England. Combined adult and paediatric Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) hubs (previously RCAS hubs). 2022. URL: https://www​.england.nhs​.uk/wp-content/uploads​/2022/10/BW2064-combined-adult-paediatric-ari-hubs-october-22.pdf (Accessed 10 June 2023).
2.
NHS England and NHS Improvement. Point of care testing in community pharmacies: Guidance for commissioners and community pharmacies delivering NHS services. 2022. URL: https://www​.england.nhs​.uk/wp-content/uploads​/2022/01/B0722-Point-of-Care-Testing-in-Community-Pharmacies-Guide​_January-2022.pdf (Accessed 10 June 2023).
3.
Saleh MAA, van de Garde EMW, van Hasselt JGC. Host-response biomarkers for the diagnosis of bacterial respiratory tract infections. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57(4):442–51. 10.1515/cclm-2018-0682 [PubMed: 30183665] [CrossRef]
4.
Hoeboer SH, van der Geest PJ, Nieboer D, Groeneveld AB. The diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin for bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21(5):474–81. 10.1016/j.cmi.2014.12.026 [PubMed: 25726038] [CrossRef]
5.
Tsao YT, Tsai YH, Liao WT, Shen CJ, Shen CF, Cheng CM. Differential Markers of Bacterial and Viral Infections in Children for Point-of-Care Testing. Trends Mol Med 2020;26(12):1118–32. 10.1016/j.molmed.2020.09.004 [PMC free article: PMC7522093] [PubMed: 33008730] [CrossRef]
6.
Hayney MS, Henriquez KM, Barnet JH, Ewers T, Champion HM, Flannery S, et al. Serum IFN-γ-induced protein 10 (IP-10) as a biomarker for severity of acute respiratory infection in healthy adults. J Clin Virol 2017;90:32–7. 10.1016/j.jcv.2017.03.003 [PMC free article: PMC5408957] [PubMed: 28334685] [CrossRef]
7.
Shapiro NI, Filbin MR, Hou PC, Kurz MC, Han JH, Aufderheide TP, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of a Bacterial and Viral Biomarker Point-of-Care Test in the Outpatient Setting. JAMA Network Open 2022;5(10):e2234588–e. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.34588 [PMC free article: PMC9579916] [PubMed: 36255727] [CrossRef]
8.
Vos LM, Bruning AHL, Reitsma JB, Schuurman R, Riezebos-Brilman A, Hoepelman AIM, et al. Rapid Molecular Tests for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Impact Studies. Clin Infect Dis 2019;69(7):1243–53. 10.1093/cid/ciz056 [PMC free article: PMC7108200] [PubMed: 30689772] [CrossRef]
9.
Lean WL, Arnup S, Danchin M, Steer AC. Rapid diagnostic tests for group A streptococcal pharyngitis: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2014;134(4):771–81. 10.1542/peds.2014-1094 [PubMed: 25201792] [CrossRef]
10.
Kim P, Deshpande A, Rothberg MB. Urinary Antigen Testing for Respiratory Infections: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations. Infect Drug Resist 2022;15:2219–28. 10.2147/idr.S321168 [PMC free article: PMC9058651] [PubMed: 35510157] [CrossRef]
11.
SR / MA / HTA / ITC - MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo. In. CADTH Search Filters Database. Ottawa: CADTH; 2021. URL: https:​//searchfilters.cadth.ca/link/33 (Accessed 23 June 2023).
12.
Cochrane. How CENTRAL is created. Cochrane Library; 2023. URL: https://www​.cochranelibrary​.com/central/central-creation (Accessed 23 June 2023).
13.
Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Featherstone R, Littlewood A, Marshall C, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane; 2022. URL: https://training​.cochrane​.org/handbook/current/chapter-04 (Accessed 26 May 2023).
14.
MEDLINE Sensitivity- and precision-maximizing version (2023 revision) for Ovid. In: Randomized Controlled Trials and Other Trials: Filters. The ISSG Search Filter Resource; 2023. URL: https://sites​.google​.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home/rcts (Accessed 26 May 2023).
15.
Glanville J. Embase RCT filter for Ovid: 30 April 2023 revision. The ISSG Search Filter Resource; 2023. URL: https://sites​.google​.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource​/home/rcts/embase-rct-filter#h​.ge0knbymsrdx (Accessed 28 May 2023).
16.
Smedemark SA, Aabenhus R, Llor C, Fournaise A, Olsen O, Jørgensen KJ. Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022(10):CD010130. 10.1002/14651858.CD010130.pub3 [PMC free article: PMC9575154] [PubMed: 36250577] [CrossRef]
17.
Higgins J, Eldridge S, Li Te. Chapter 23: Including variants on randomized trials. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022) 2022. http://www​.training.cochrane​.org/handbook
18.
Langan D, Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Bowden J, Veroniki AA, Kontopantelis E, et al. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 2019;10(1):83–98. 10.1002/jrsm.1316 [PubMed: 30067315] [CrossRef]
19.
Hubbard W, Walsh N, Hudson T, Heath A, Dietz J, Rogers G. Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2022;22(1):310. 10.1186/s12874-022-01796-2 [PMC free article: PMC9719242] [PubMed: 36463100] [CrossRef]
20.
van der Pol S, Garcia PR, Postma MJ, Villar FA, van Asselt ADI. Economic Analyses of Respiratory Tract Infection Diagnostics: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics 2021;39(12):1411–27. 10.1007/s40273-021-01054-1 [PMC free article: PMC8279883] [PubMed: 34263422] [CrossRef]
21.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016;5(1):210. 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 [PMC free article: PMC5139140] [PubMed: 27919275] [CrossRef]
22.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4 edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.
23.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Appendix H: Appraisal checklists, evidence tables, GRADE and economic profiles. In: Developing NICE guidelines: the manual Process and methods [PMG20]. 2022. URL: https://www​.nice.org​.uk/process/pmg20/resources​/appendix-h-appraisal-checklists-evidence-tables-grade-and-economic-profiles-pdf-8779777885 (Accessed 31 May 2023).
24.
Butler CC, Gillespie D, White P, Bates J, Lowe R, Thomas-Jones E, et al. C-Reactive Protein Testing to Guide Antibiotic Prescribing for COPD Exacerbations. N Engl J Med 2019;381(2):111–20. 10.1056/NEJMoa1803185 [PubMed: 31291514] [CrossRef]
25.
Little P, Stuart B, Francis N, Douglas E, Tonkin-Crine S, Anthierens S, et al. Effects of internet-based training on antibiotic prescribing rates for acute respiratory-tract infections: a multinational, cluster, randomised, factorial, controlled trial. Lancet (london, england) 2013;382(9899):1175–82. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60994-0 [PMC free article: PMC3807804] [PubMed: 23915885] [CrossRef]
26.
Cals JW, Butler CC, Hopstaken RM, Hood K, Dinant GJ. Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2009;338:b1374. 10.1136/bmj.b1374 [PMC free article: PMC2677640] [PubMed: 19416992] [CrossRef]
27.
Boere TM, van Buul LW, Hopstaken RM, van Tulder MW, Twisk J, Verheij TJM, et al. Effect of C reactive protein point-of-care testing on antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections in nursing home residents: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2021;374:n2198. 10.1136/bmj.n2198 [PMC free article: PMC8453309] [PubMed: 34548288] [CrossRef]
28.
Cals JW, Schot MJ, de Jong SA, Dinant GJ, Hopstaken RM. Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing and antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2010;8(2):124–33. 10.1370/afm.1090 [PMC free article: PMC2834719] [PubMed: 20212299] [CrossRef]
29.
Andreeva E, Melbye H. Usefulness of C-reactive protein testing in acute cough/respiratory tract infection: an open cluster-randomized clinical trial with C-reactive protein testing in the intervention group. BMC Fam Pract 2014;15:80. 10.1186/1471-2296-15-80 [PMC free article: PMC4016668] [PubMed: 24886066] [CrossRef]
30.
Althaus T, Greer RC, Swe MMM, Cohen J, Tun NN, Heaton J, et al. Effect of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing on antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care in Thailand and Myanmar: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health 2019;7(1):e119–e31. 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30444-3 [PMC free article: PMC6293968] [PubMed: 30554748] [CrossRef]
31.
Diederichsen HZ, Skamling M, Diederichsen A, Grinsted P, Antonsen S, Petersen PH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of CRP rapid test as a guide to treatment of respiratory infections in general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care 2000;18(1):39–43. 10.1080/02813430050202541 [PubMed: 10811042] [CrossRef]
32.
Melbye H, Aaraas I, Fleten N, Kolstrup N, Mikalsen JI. The value of C-reactive protein testing in suspected lower respiratory tract infections. A study from general practice on the effect of a rapid test on antibiotic research and course of the disease in adults. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1995;115(13):1610–5. [PubMed: 7778075]
33.
Do NT, Ta NT, Tran NT, Than HM, Vu BT, Hoang LB, et al. Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics for non-severe acute respiratory infections in Vietnamese primary health care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health 2016;4(9):e633–41. 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30142-5 [PMC free article: PMC4985565] [PubMed: 27495137] [CrossRef]
34.
Francis NA, Gillespie D, White P, Bates J, Lowe R, Sewell B, et al. C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020;24(15):1–108. 10.3310/hta24150 [PMC free article: PMC7132534] [PubMed: 32202490] [CrossRef]
35.
Cals JW, de Bock L, Beckers PJ, Francis NA, Hopstaken RM, Hood K, et al. Enhanced communication skills and C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for respiratory tract infection: 3.5-year follow-up of a cluster randomized trial. Ann Fam Med 2013;11(2):157–64. 10.1370/afm.1477 [PMC free article: PMC3601394] [PubMed: 23508603] [CrossRef]
36.
Boere TM, El Alili M, van Buul LW, Hopstaken RM, Verheij TJM, Hertogh C, et al. Cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in comparison with usual care to reduce antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections in nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial. BMJ open 2022;12(9):e055234. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055234 [PMC free article: PMC9478864] [PubMed: 36109036] [CrossRef]
37.
Little P, Stuart B, Francis N, Douglas E, Tonkin-Crine S, Anthierens S, et al. Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections 12 Months After Communication and CRP Training: a Randomized Trial. Ann Fam Med 2019;17(2):125–32. 10.1370/afm.2356 [PMC free article: PMC6411389] [PubMed: 30858255] [CrossRef]
38.
Lhopitallier L, Kronenberg A, Meuwly JY, Locatelli I, Mueller Y, Senn N, et al. Procalcitonin and lung ultrasonography point-of-care testing to determine antibiotic prescription in patients with lower respiratory tract infection in primary care: pragmatic cluster randomised trial. BMJ 2021;374:n2132. 10.1136/bmj.n2132 [PMC free article: PMC9083102] [PubMed: 34548312] [CrossRef]
39.
Llor C, Madurell J, Balagué-Corbella M, Gómez M, Cots JM. Impact on antibiotic prescription of rapid antigen detection testing in acute pharyngitis in adults: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Gen Pract 2011;61(586):e244–51. 10.3399/bjgp11X572436 [PMC free article: PMC3080229] [PubMed: 21619748] [CrossRef]
40.
Worrall G, Hutchinson J, Sherman G, Griffiths J. Diagnosing streptococcal sore throat in adults: randomized controlled trial of in-office aids. Can Fam Physician 2007;53(4):666–71. [PMC free article: PMC1952596] [PubMed: 17872717]
41.
Berthod D, Genton B, Hatz C, Blum J, de Vallière S. Ability of physicians to diagnose influenza and usefulness of a rapid influenza antigen test in febrile returning travelers: a randomized controlled trial. Travel Med Infect Dis 2015;13(5):394–9. 10.1016/j.tmaid.2015.08.001 [PubMed: 26358968] [CrossRef]
42.
Rapid Flu Tests in Travelers With Fever. ClinicalTrials​.gov; 2009. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00821626 (Accessed 20 June 2023).
43.
Benson MSG, R.; Kubilis, P. S.; Pierson, D. J. Erratum: Non-bronchoscopic diagnosis of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia: Is it cost-effective? (Respiratory Care 1990; 35:1100). Respir Care 1991;36:22.
44.
Wubishet BL, Merlo G, Ghahreman-Falconer N, Hall L, Comans T. Economic evaluation of antimicrobial stewardship in primary care: a systematic review and quality assessment. J Antimicrob Chemother 2022;77(9):2373–88. 10.1093/jac/dkac185 [PMC free article: PMC9410674] [PubMed: 35724206] [CrossRef]
45.
Bilir SP, Kruger E, Faller M, Munakata J, Karichu JK, Sickler J, et al. US cost-effectiveness and budget impact of point-of-care NAAT for streptococcus. Am J Manag Care 2021;27(5):e157–e63. 10.37765/ajmc.2021.88638 [PubMed: 34002967] [CrossRef]
46.
Chew R, Greer RC, Tasak N, Day NPJ, Lubell Y. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of pulse oximetry in primary care management of acute respiratory infection in rural northern Thailand. Trop Med Int Health 2022;27(10):881–90. 10.1111/tmi.13812 [PMC free article: PMC9805201] [PubMed: 36054516] [CrossRef]
47.
Fraser H, Gallacher D, Achana F, Court R, Taylor-Phillips S, Nduka C, et al. Rapid antigen detection and molecular tests for group A streptococcal infections for acute sore throat: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2020;24(31):1–232. 10.3310/hta24310 [PMC free article: PMC7355404] [PubMed: 32605705] [CrossRef]
48.
Holmes EAF, Harris SD, Hughes A, Craine N, Hughes DA. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care. Antibiotics 2018;7(4):07. 10.3390/antibiotics7040106 [PMC free article: PMC6315627] [PubMed: 30544560] [CrossRef]
49.
Hunter R. Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care C-reactive protein tests for respiratory tract infection in primary care in England. Adv Ther 2015;32(1):69–85. 10.1007/s12325-015-0180-x [PMC free article: PMC4311066] [PubMed: 25620538] [CrossRef]
50.
Little P, Hobbs FD, Moore M, Mant D, Williamson I, McNulty C, et al. PRImary care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study: in vitro study, diagnostic cohorts and a pragmatic adaptive randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative study and cost-effectiveness study. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(6):vii–xxv, 1–101. 10.3310/hta18060 [PMC free article: PMC4781545] [PubMed: 24467988] [CrossRef]
51.
Mac S, O’Reilly R, Adhikari NKJ, Fowler R, Sander B. Point-of-care diagnostic tests for influenza in the emergency department: A cost-effectiveness analysis in a high-risk population from a Canadian perspective. PLoS One 2020;15(11):e0242255. 10.1371/journal.pone.0242255 [PMC free article: PMC7668582] [PubMed: 33196653] [CrossRef]
52.
Michaelidis CI, Zimmerman RK, Nowalk MP, Fine MJ, Smith KJ. Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy for outpatient management of acute respiratory tract infections in adults. J Gen Intern Med 2014;29(4):579–86. 10.1007/s11606-013-2679-7 [PMC free article: PMC3965735] [PubMed: 24234394] [CrossRef]
53.
Neuner JM, Hamel MB, Phillips RS, Bona K, Aronson MD. Diagnosis and management of adults with pharyngitis. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2003;139(2):113–22. 10.7326/0003-4819-139-2-200307150-00011 [PubMed: 12859161] [CrossRef]
54.
Nicholson KG, Abrams KR, Batham S, Medina MJ, Warren FC, Barer M, et al. Randomised controlled trial and health economic evaluation of the impact of diagnostic testing for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae infection on the management of acute admissions in the elderly and high-risk 18- to 64-year-olds. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(36):1–274, vii–viii. 10.3310/hta18360 [PMC free article: PMC4781605] [PubMed: 24875092] [CrossRef]
55.
Oppong R, Jit M, Smith RD, Butler CC, Melbye H, Molstad S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing to inform antibiotic prescribing decisions. Br J Gen Pract 2013;63(612):e465–71. 10.3399/bjgp13X669185 [PMC free article: PMC3693803] [PubMed: 23834883] [CrossRef]
56.
Rothberg MB, Bellantonio S, Rose DN. Management of influenza in adults older than 65 years of age: cost-effectiveness of rapid testing and antiviral therapy. Ann Intern Med 2003;139(5):321–9. 10.7326/0003-4819-139-5_part_1-200309020-00007 [PubMed: 12965940] [CrossRef]
57.
Rothberg MB, He S, Rose DN. Management of influenza symptoms in healthy adults. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18(10):808–15. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20822.x. [PMC free article: PMC1494927] [PubMed: 14521643] [CrossRef]
58.
Smith KJ, Roberts MS. Cost-effectiveness of newer treatment strategies for influenza. Am J Med 2002;113(4):300–7. 10.1016/s0002-9343(02)01222-6. [PubMed: 12361816] [CrossRef]
59.
You JHS, Tam LP, Lee NLS. Cost-effectiveness of molecular point-of-care testing for influenza viruses in elderly patients at ambulatory care setting. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource] 2017;12(7):e0182091. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182091 [PMC free article: PMC5531460] [PubMed: 28750092] [CrossRef]
60.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Pharmacoeconomics 2013;31(5):361–7. 10.1007/s40273-013-0032-y [PubMed: 23529207] [CrossRef]
61.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pneumonia in adults: diagnosis and management: Clinical guideline [CG191]. 2014. URL: https://www​.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg191 (Accessed 14 June 2023). [PubMed: 31841289]

6. Appendices

Appendix 1. Review protocol

Version/Date: Version 1, 18 May 2023 (PDF, 376K)

Appendix 2. Literature Search Strategies

Searches for systematic reviews

MEDLINE (Ovid)

Searched: 04 May 2023

Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL <1946 to May 03, 2023>

  1. Respiratory Tract Infections/ 42594
  2. exp Bronchitis/ or Common Cold/ or Infectious Mononucleosis/ or Influenza, Human/ or Laryngitis/ or exp Pharyngitis/ or exp Pneumonia/ or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/ 433538
  3. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 122465
  4. ((chest or lung? or lobar or pleura?) adj3 (absces* or infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 44681
  5. (bronchit* or bronchopneumon* or common cold* or glandular fever or infectious mononucleosis or flu or influenza or laryngit* or laryngotracheobronchit* or laryngo tracheo bronchit* or laryngo tracheobronchit* or laryngotracheit* or nasopharyngit* or parainfluenza or pharyngit* or pneumoni* or pleuropneumoni* or rhinopharyngit* or severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS or sore throat* or throat infection* or supraglottit* or supraglotit* or tonsillit* or tonsilit* or tracheit*).tw,kf. 520988
  6. ((acute* or exacerbat* or flare*) adj3 (copd or coad or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic obstructive airway* disease or chronic obstructive lung disease)).mp. 10264
  7. ((acute* or subacute* or exacerbat* or prolonged) adj3 cough*).mp. 1542
  8. (RTI or LRTI or URTI or ARTI or AURI or ALRI).tw,kf. 6290
  9. exp Respiratory System/ and (exp Viruses/ or exp Virus Diseases/) 34955
  10. exp pneumonia, viral/ or *orthomyxoviridae infections/ or influenza, human/ 288725
  11. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (nonbacter* or viral* or virus* or adenovir*)).tw,kf. 35760
  12. (rhinovir* or rhino* vir* or coryzavir* or coryza* vir* or influenzavir* or influenza* vir* or (H1N1 or H3N2) or parainfluenzavir* or parainfluenza* vir* or pneumovir* or pneumo* vir* or human metapneumovir* or human meta-pneumovir* or HMPV or respiratory syncytial vir*).mp. or RSV.tw,kf. 138771
  13. exp Respiratory System/ and (exp Bacteria/ or exp Bacterial Infections/) 48045
  14. pneumonia, bacterial/ or chlamydial pneumonia/ or pneumonia, mycoplasma/ or pneumonia, pneumococcal/ or pneumonia, staphylococcal/ 22808
  15. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (bacter* or bacilli* or bacili* or corynebac* or mycobac* or nonvir* or pathogen*)).tw,kf. 22594
  16. (strep* pneumon* or diplococ* pneumon* or pneumococ* or staph* pneumon* or chlamyd* pneumon* or myco* pneumon* or influenza bacil* or bacteri* influenza* or h?emophil* influenza*).mp. 80712
  17. ((strep* adj3 (throat* or pharyn* or tonsil*)) or (strep* and (airway* or pulmonary or brochopulmonar* or brocho-pulmonar* or respiratory*))).mp. 22142
  18. (GABHS or (“group a” adj3 strep*)).tw,kf. 10718
  19. strep* pyogen*.mp. 18532
  20. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection] 957868
  21. Point-of-Care Systems/ 16336
  22. (POCT or POCTs or (((point adj2 care) or poc) adj3 (analys* or antigen? or assay* or device? or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or platform? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or (cassette? or dipstick? or film* or stick or strip or fluorescent antibod*)))).tw,kf. 21606
  23. (point adj2 care).ti,kf. 14978
  24. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or rapid* or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 (analys* or antigen? or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or fluorescent antibod*)).tw,kf. 204252
  25. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 rapid*).tw,kf. 635
  26. Rapid Diagnostic Tests/ 35
  27. (rapid* adj3 (detect* or diagnos* or screen*)).tw,kf. 71578
  28. (time-to-result? or ((quick* or rapid* or short* or time*) adj3 (turnaround or turn-around))).tw,kf. 8081
  29. (antigen? adj3 (analys* or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test*)).tw,kf. 90702
  30. (RADT or RADTs or RDT or RDTs).tw,kf. 3308
  31. (rapid molecular or multiplex*).mp. 72823
  32. lab-on-a-chip.tw,kf. 3494
  33. ((lateral flow adj (assay* or immunoassay* or test*)) or LFA or LFIA).tw,kf. 9954
  34. (immunochromatograph* or immuno-chromatograph* or immuno-chromato-graph* or direct immunofluorescence or direct immuno-fluorescence or enzym* immunoassay* or enzym* immuno-assay* or fluorescence immunoassay* or fluorescence immuno-assay* or optical immunoassay* or optical immuno-assay*).mp. or (ICA or EIA or FIA or OIA).tw,kf. 60364
  35. ((chemiluminescen* or chemi-luminescen*) adj (immunoassay* or immuno-assay* or assay*)).mp. 4693
  36. (((mobile or portable or handheld or hand-held) adj3 (analy#er? or device? or meters or metres)) and (blood? or plasma or saliva or sputum or spit or mucus or urine or urea or urinalys* or fluids or gas or gases)).mp. 2602
  37. 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 [Rapid Tests] 452888
  38. 20 and 37 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Rapid Tests] 33006
  39. (systematic review or meta-analysis).pt. 309240
  40. meta-analysis/ or systematic review/ or systematic reviews as topic/ or meta-analysis as topic/ or “meta analysis (topic)”/ or “systematic review (topic)”/ or exp technology assessment, biomedical/ or network meta-analysis/ 347218
  41. ((systematic* adj3 (review* or overview*)) or (methodologic* adj3 (review* or overview*))).ti,ab,kf. 313541
  42. ((quantitative adj3 (review* or overview* or synthes*)) or (research adj3 (integrati* or overview*))).ti,ab,kf. 15381
  43. ((integrative adj3 (review* or overview*)) or (collaborative adj3 (review* or overview*)) or (pool* adj3 analy*)).ti,ab,kf. 38276
  44. (data synthes* or data extraction* or data abstraction*).ti,ab,kf. 39706
  45. (handsearch* or hand search*).ti,ab,kf. 11062
  46. (mantel haenszel or peto or der simonian or dersimonian or fixed effect* or latin square*).ti,ab,kf. 35169
  47. (met analy* or metanaly* or technology assessment* or HTA or HTAs or technology overview* or technology appraisal*).ti,ab,kf. 11998
  48. (meta regression* or metaregression*).ti,ab,kf. 14264
  49. (meta-analy* or metaanaly* or systematic review* or biomedical technology assessment* or bio-medical technology assessment*).mp,hw. 459155
  50. (medline or cochrane or pubmed or medlars or embase or cinahl).ti,ab,hw. 335245
  51. (cochrane or (health adj2 technology assessment) or evidence report).jw. 21350
  52. (comparative adj3 (efficacy or effectiveness)).ti,ab,kf. 17353
  53. (outcomes research or relative effectiveness).ti,ab,kf. 11149
  54. ((indirect or indirect treatment or mixed-treatment or bayesian) adj3 comparison*).ti,ab,kf. 4285
  55. (multi* adj3 treatment adj3 comparison*).ti,ab,kf. 291
  56. (mixed adj3 treatment adj3 (meta-analy* or metaanaly*)).ti,ab,kf. 178
  57. umbrella review*.ti,ab,kf. 1411
  58. (multi* adj2 paramet* adj2 evidence adj2 synthesis).ti,ab,kf. 14
  59. (multiparamet* adj2 evidence adj2 synthesis).ti,ab,kf. 18
  60. (multi-paramet* adj2 evidence adj2 synthesis).ti,ab,kf. 12
  61. or/39-60 [CADTH SR filter] 672225
  62. 38 and 61 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Rapid Tests AND CADTH SR filter] 901
  63. (metaanalys* or meta analys* or NMA* or MAIC* or indirect comparison* or mixed treatment comparison*).mp. 303671
  64. (systematic* adj3 (review* or overview* or search or literature)).mp. 351213
  65. 63 or 64 [in-house SR filter] 485892
  66. 38 and 65 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Rapid Tests AND in-house SR filter] 642
  67. 62 or 66 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Rapid Tests AND either SR filter] 906
  68. limit 67 to english language 875
  69. limit 68 to (comment or editorial or letter or news) 19
  70. 68 not 69 856

Total after 7 duplicates identified in EndNote removed: 849

Epistemonikos

Searched: 11 May 2023

title:((((airway* OR bronchopulmonar* OR broncho-pulmonar* OR tracheobronch* OR tracheo-bronch* OR pulmonary OR respiratory OR chest OR lung* OR lobar OR pleura*) AND (infect* OR coinfect* OR inflamm* OR nonbacter* OR viral* OR virus* OR adenovir* OR bacter* OR bacilli* OR bacili* OR corynebac* OR mycobac* OR nonvir* OR pathogen*)) OR (bronchit* OR bronchopneumon* OR “common cold” OR “glandular fever” OR “infectious mononucleosis” OR flu OR influenza OR laryngit* OR laryngotracheobronchit* OR “laryngo tracheo bronchitis” OR “laryngo tracheobronchitis” OR laryngotracheit* OR nasopharyngit* OR parainfluenza OR pharyngit* OR pneumoni* OR pleuropneumoni* OR rhinopharyngit* OR “severe acute respiratory syndrome” OR SARS OR “sore throat” OR “throat infection” OR supraglottit* OR supraglotit* OR tonsillit* OR tonsilit* OR tracheit*) OR ((acute* OR exacerbat* OR flare*) AND (copd OR coad OR “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” OR “chronic obstructive airway disease” OR “chronic obstructive lung disease”)) OR (“acute cough” OR “subacute cough” OR “exacerbated cough” OR “prolonged cough” OR “acute coughing” OR “subacute coughing” OR “exacerbated coughing” OR “prolonged coughing”) OR (RTI OR LRTI OR URTI OR ARTI OR AURI OR ALRI) OR (rhinovir* OR “rhino virus” OR coryzavir* OR “coryza virus” OR influenzavir* OR “influenza virus” OR H1N1 OR H3N2 OR parainfluenzavir* OR “parainfluenza virus” OR pneumovir* OR “pneumo virus” OR “human metapneumovirus” OR “human meta-pneumovirus” OR HMPV OR “respiratory syncytial virus” OR RSV) OR (((strep* OR diplococ* OR pneumococ* OR staph* OR chlamyd* OR myco*) AND pneumon*) OR ((bacil* OR bacteri* OR haemophil* OR hemophil*) AND influenza*)) OR ((strep* AND (throat* OR pharyn* OR tonsil* OR airway* OR pulmonary OR brochopulmonar* OR brocho-pulmonar* OR respiratory* OR pyogen*))) OR (GABHS OR (“group a” AND strep*)))) AND (title:((POCT OR POCTs OR ((“point of care” OR “near patient” OR near-patient OR nearpatient OR bedside* OR bed-side* OR extra-laboratory OR extralaboratory OR time-to-result* OR quick* OR rapid* OR short* OR antigen*) AND (analys* OR assay* OR immunoassay* OR classif* OR detect* OR determin* OR diagnos* OR differenti* OR identif* OR method* OR kit OR kits OR panel* OR predict* OR routine* OR screen* OR system* OR technique* OR test*)) OR (RADT OR RADTs OR RDT OR RDTs OR “rapid molecular” OR multiplex* OR “lab-on-a-chip”) OR (((mobile OR portable OR handheld OR hand-held) AND (analyser* OR analyzer* OR device* OR meters OR metres)) AND (blood* OR plasma OR saliva OR sputum OR spit OR mucus OR urine OR urea OR urinalys* OR fluids OR gas OR gases)))) OR abstract:((POCT OR POCTs OR ((“point of care” OR “near patient” OR near-patient OR nearpatient OR bedside* OR bed-side* OR extra-laboratory OR extralaboratory OR time-to-result* OR quick* OR rapid* OR short* OR antigen*) AND (analys* OR assay* OR immunoassay* OR classif* OR detect* OR determin* OR diagnos* OR differenti* OR identif* OR method* OR kit OR kits OR panel* OR predict* OR routine* OR screen* OR system* OR technique* OR test*)) OR (RADT OR RADTs OR RDT OR RDTs OR “rapid molecular” OR multiplex* OR “lab-on-a-chip”) OR (((mobile OR portable OR handheld OR hand-held) AND (analyser* OR analyzer* OR device* OR meters OR metres)) AND (blood* OR plasma OR saliva OR sputum OR spit OR mucus OR urine OR urea OR urinalys* OR fluids OR gas OR gases)))))

Limited to:

Publication Type: Systematic Reviews

Total: 617

Searches for RCTs

CENTRAL (Wiley)

Search Name: Acute Respiratory Infections RCTs

Date Run: 26/05/2023 22:22:45

Comment: 26 May 2023

  • ID Search Hits

  • #1.

    [mh ^“Respiratory Tract Infections”] 2777

    #2.

    [mh Bronchitis] OR [mh ^“Common Cold”] OR [mh ^“Infectious Mononucleosis”] OR [mh ^“Influenza, Human”] OR [mh ^Laryngitis] OR [mh Pharyngitis] OR [mh Pneumonia] OR [mh ^“Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome”] 17706

    #3.

    ((airway* OR bronchopulmonar* OR broncho-pulmonar* OR tracheobronch* OR tracheo-bronch* OR (pulmonar* NEXT tract) OR pulmonary OR (respirat* NEXT tract) OR respiratory) NEAR/3 (infect* OR coinfect* OR inflamm*)):ti,ab,kw 18614

    #4.

    ((chest OR lung? OR lobar OR pleura?) NEAR/3 (absces* OR infect* OR coinfect* OR inflamm*)):ti,ab,kw 4150

    #5.

    (bronchit* OR bronchopneumon* OR (common NEXT cold*) OR “glandular fever” OR “infectious mononucleosis” OR flu OR influenza OR laryngit* OR laryngotracheobronchit* OR (“laryngo tracheo” NEXT bronchit*) OR (laryngo NEXT tracheobronchit*) OR laryngotracheit* OR nasopharyngit* OR parainfluenza OR pharyngit* OR pneumoni* OR pleuropneumoni* OR rhinopharyngit* OR “severe acute respiratory syndrome” OR SARS OR (sore NEXT throat*) OR (throat NEXT infection*) OR supraglottit* OR supraglotit* OR tonsillit* OR tonsilit* OR tracheit*):ti,ab,kw 51341

    #6.

    ((acute* OR exacerbat* OR flare*) NEAR/3 (copd OR coad OR “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” OR (“chronic obstructive” NEXT airway* NEXT disease) OR “chronic obstructive lung disease”)):ti,ab,kw 4040

    #7.

    ((acute* OR subacute* OR exacerbat* OR prolonged) NEAR/3 cough*):ti,ab,kw 525

    #8.

    (RTI OR LRTI OR URTI OR ARTI OR AURI OR ALRI):ti,ab,kw 1399

    #9.

    [mh “Respiratory System”] AND ([mh Viruses] OR [mh “Virus Diseases”]) 453

    #10.

    [mh “pneumonia, viral”] OR [mh ^“orthomyxoviridae infections”] OR [mh ^“influenza, human”] 7578

    #11.

    ((airway* OR bronchopulmonar* OR broncho-pulmonar* OR tracheobronch* OR tracheo-bronch* OR (pulmonar* NEXT tract) OR pulmonary OR (respirat* NEXT tract) OR respiratory) NEAR/3 (nonbacter* OR viral* OR virus* OR adenovir*)):ti,ab,kw 2500

    #12.

    (rhinovir* OR (rhino* NEXT vir*) OR coryzavir* OR (coryza* NEXT vir*) OR influenzavir* OR (influenza* NEXT vir*) OR (H1N1 OR H3N2) OR parainfluenzavir* OR (parainfluenza* NEXT vir*) OR pneumovir* OR (pneumo* NEXT vir*) OR (human NEXT metapneumovir*) OR (human NEXT meta-pneumovir*) OR HMPV OR (“respiratory syncytial” NEXT vir*) OR RSV):ti,ab,kw 4910

    #13.

    [mh “Respiratory System”] AND ([mh Bacteria] OR [mh “Bacterial Infections”]) 874

    #14.

    [mh ^“pneumonia, bacterial”] OR [mh ^“chlamydial pneumonia”] OR [mh ^“pneumonia, mycoplasma”] OR [mh ^“pneumonia, pneumococcal”] OR [mh ^“pneumonia, staphylococcal”] 946

    #15.

    ((airway* OR bronchopulmonar* OR broncho-pulmonar* OR tracheobronch* OR tracheo-bronch* OR (pulmonar* NEXT tract) OR pulmonary OR (respirat* NEXT tract) OR respiratory) NEAR/3 (bacter* OR bacilli* OR bacili* OR corynebac* OR mycobac* OR nonvir* OR pathogen*)):ti,ab,kw 1072

    #16.

    ((strep* NEXT pneumon*) OR (diplococ* NEXT pneumon*) OR pneumococ* OR (staph* NEXT pneumon*) OR (chlamyd* NEXT pneumon*) OR (myco* NEXT pneumon*) OR (influenza NEXT bacil*) OR (bacteri* NEXT influenza*) OR (hemophil* NEXT influenza*) OR (haemophil* NEXT influenza*)):ti,ab,kw 5166

    #17.

    ((strep* NEAR/3 (throat* OR pharyn* OR tonsil*)) OR (strep* AND (airway* OR pulmonary OR brochopulmonar* OR brocho-pulmonar* OR respiratory*))):ti,ab,kw 1729

    #18.

    (GABHS OR (“group a” NEAR/3 strep*)):ti,ab,kw 496

    #19.

    (strep* NEXT pyogen*):ti,ab,kw 494

    #20.

    #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 74475

    #21.

    [mh ^“Point-of-Care Systems”] 575

    #22.

    (POCT OR POCTs OR (((point NEAR/2 care) OR poc) NEAR/3 (analys* OR antigen? OR assay* OR device? OR immunoassay* OR classif* OR detect* OR determin* OR diagnos* OR differenti* OR identif* OR method* OR kit OR kits OR panel? OR platform? OR predict* OR rapid OR routine* OR screen* OR system* OR technique* OR test* OR cassette? OR dipstick? OR film* OR stick OR strip OR (fluorescent NEXT antibod*)))):ti,ab,kw 2015

    #23.

    (point NEAR/2 care):ti,kw 1372

    #24.

    ((“near patient” OR “near-patient” OR nearpatient OR rapid* OR bedside? OR bed-side? OR extra-laboratory OR extralaboratory) NEAR/3 (analys* OR antigen? OR assay* OR immunoassay* OR classif* OR detect* OR determin* OR diagnos* OR differenti* OR identif* OR method* OR kit OR kits OR panel? OR predict* OR screen* OR system* OR technique* OR test* OR (fluorescent NEXT antibod*))):ti,ab,kw 6530

    #25.

    ((“near patient” OR “near-patient” OR nearpatient OR bedside? OR bed-side? OR extra-laboratory OR extralaboratory) NEAR/3 rapid*):ti,ab,kw 39

    #26.

    [mh ^“Rapid Diagnostic Tests”] 0

    #27.

    (rapid* NEAR/3 (detect* OR diagnos* OR screen*)):ti,ab,kw 1611

    #28.

    (time-to-result? OR ((quick* OR rapid* OR short* OR time*) NEAR/3 (turnaround OR turn-around))):ti,ab,kw 314

    #29.

    (antigen? NEAR/3 (analys* OR assay* OR immunoassay* OR classif* OR detect* OR determin* OR diagnos* OR differenti* OR identif* OR method* OR kit OR kits OR panel? OR predict* OR rapid OR routine* OR screen* OR system* OR technique* OR test*)):ti,ab,kw 4499

    #30.

    (RADT OR RADTs OR RDT OR RDTs):ti,ab,kw 485

    #31.

    (“rapid molecular” OR multiplex*):ti,ab,kw 1767

    #32.

    lab-on-a-chip:ti,ab,kw 0

    #33.

    ((“lateral flow” NEXT (assay* OR immunoassay* OR test*)) OR LFA OR LFIA):ti,ab,kw 206

    #34.

    (immunochromatograph* OR immuno-chromatograph* OR immuno-chromato-graph* OR “direct immunofluorescence” OR “direct immuno-fluorescence” OR (enzym* NEXT immunoassay*) OR (enzym* NEXT immuno-assay*) OR (“fluorescence” NEXT immunoassay*) OR (“fluorescence” NEXT immuno-assay*) OR (“optical” NEXT immunoassay*) OR (“optical” NEXT immuno-assay*)) OR (ICA OR EIA OR FIA OR OIA):ti,ab,kw 2911

    #35.

    ((chemiluminescen* OR chemi-luminescen*) NEXT (immunoassay* OR immuno-assay* OR assay*)):ti,ab,kw 500

    #36.

    (((mobile OR portable OR handheld OR hand-held) NEAR/3 (analyser? OR analyzer? OR device? OR meters OR metres)) AND (blood? OR plasma OR saliva OR sputum OR spit OR mucus OR urine OR urea OR urinalys* OR fluids OR gas OR gases)):ti,ab,kw 546

    #37.

    ((biomarker* OR procalcitonin* OR PCT OR “c reactive protein” OR “c-reactive protein” OR “C-reactive protein” OR CRP OR leucocyte OR leukocyte OR neutrophil* OR (“white blood cell” NEXT count*) OR wbc OR wbcc OR sodium OR “partial pressure of oxygen” OR “partial pressure O2” OR PaO2 OR “blood count” OR “platelet count” OR CBC OR FBC OR (“blood” NEXT exam*) OR (blood NEXT test*) OR (blood NEXT draw*) OR haematolog* OR hematolog* OR haemoglobin OR hemoglobin OR haematocrit OR hematocrit OR “white blood cell” OR “red blood cell” OR “mean platelet volume” OR “mean corpuscular volume” OR “mean corpuscular haemoglobin” OR “mean corpuscular hemoglobin” OR platelet* OR basophil* OR eosinophil* OR lymphocyte* OR monocyte* OR erythrocyte*) NEAR/3 (guid* OR direct* OR steer* OR inform* OR algorithm-guided OR algorithm-directed OR algorithm-steered OR algorithm-informed)):ti,ab,kw 1968

    #38.

    #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29 OR #30 OR #31 OR #32 OR #33 OR #34 OR #35 OR #36 OR #37 20117

    #39.

    #20 AND #38 2081

    • CDSR: 37
    • Protocols: 3
    • CENTRAL: 2035
    • Editorials: 1
    • Clinical Answers: 5
    MEDLINE (Ovid)

    Searched: 26 May 2023

    Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL <1946 to May 25, 2023>

    1. Respiratory Tract Infections/ 42643
    2. exp Bronchitis/ or Common Cold/ or Infectious Mononucleosis/ or Influenza, Human/ or Laryngitis/ or exp Pharyngitis/ or exp Pneumonia/ or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/ 436904
    3. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 122877
    4. ((chest or lung? or lobar or pleura?) adj3 (absces* or infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 44844
    5. (bronchit* or bronchopneumon* or common cold* or glandular fever or infectious mononucleosis or flu or influenza or laryngit* or laryngotracheobronchit* or laryngo tracheo bronchit* or laryngo tracheobronchit* or laryngotracheit* or nasopharyngit* or parainfluenza or pharyngit* or pneumoni* or pleuropneumoni* or rhinopharyngit* or severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS or sore throat* or throat infection* or supraglottit* or supraglotit* or tonsillit* or tonsilit* or tracheit*).tw,kf. 523527
    6. ((acute* or exacerbat* or flare*) adj3 (copd or coad or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic obstructive airway* disease or chronic obstructive lung disease)).mp. 10315
    7. ((acute* or subacute* or exacerbat* or prolonged) adj3 cough*).mp. 1549
    8. (RTI or LRTI or URTI or ARTI or AURI or ALRI).tw,kf. 6320
    9. exp Respiratory System/ and (exp Viruses/ or exp Virus Diseases/) 35017
    10. exp pneumonia, viral/ or *orthomyxoviridae infections/ or influenza, human/ 291951
    11. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (nonbacter* or viral* or virus* or adenovir*)).tw,kf. 35921
    12. (rhinovir* or rhino* vir* or coryzavir* or coryza* vir* or influenzavir* or influenza* vir* or (H1N1 or H3N2) or parainfluenzavir* or parainfluenza* vir* or pneumovir* or pneumo* vir* or human metapneumovir* or human meta-pneumovir* or HMPV or respiratory syncytial vir*).mp. or RSV.tw,kf. 139001
    13. exp Respiratory System/ and (exp Bacteria/ or exp Bacterial Infections/) 48085
    14. pneumonia, bacterial/ or chlamydial pneumonia/ or pneumonia, mycoplasma/ or pneumonia, pneumococcal/ or pneumonia, staphylococcal/ 22815
    15. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (bacter* or bacilli* or bacili* or corynebac* or mycobac* or nonvir* or pathogen*)).tw,kf. 22660
    16. (strep* pneumon* or diplococ* pneumon* or pneumococ* or staph* pneumon* or chlamyd* pneumon* or myco* pneumon* or influenza bacil* or bacteri* influenza* or h?emophil* influenza*).mp. 80816
    17. ((strep* adj3 (throat* or pharyn* or tonsil*)) or (strep* and (airway* or pulmonary or brochopulmonar* or brocho-pulmonar* or respiratory*))).mp. 22180
    18. (GABHS or (“group a” adj3 strep*)).tw,kf. 10737
    19. strep* pyogen*.mp. 18547
    20. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection] 962908
    21. Point-of-Care Systems/ 16388
    22. (POCT or POCTs or (((point adj2 care) or poc) adj3 (analys* or antigen? or assay* or device? or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or platform? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or (cassette? or dipstick? or film* or stick or strip or fluorescent antibod*)))).tw,kf. 21789
    23. (point adj2 care).ti,kf. 15117
    24. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or rapid* or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 (analys* or antigen? or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or fluorescent antibod*)).tw,kf. 204945
    25. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 rapid*).tw,kf. 639
    26. Rapid Diagnostic Tests/ 43
    27. (rapid* adj3 (detect* or diagnos* or screen*)).tw,kf. 71887
    28. (time-to-result? or ((quick* or rapid* or short* or time*) adj3 (turnaround or turn-around))).tw,kf. 8134
    29. (antigen? adj3 (analys* or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test*)).tw,kf. 90890
    30. (RADT or RADTs or RDT or RDTs).tw,kf. 3331
    31. (rapid molecular or multiplex*).mp. 73203
    32. lab-on-a-chip.tw,kf. 3512
    33. ((lateral flow adj (assay* or immunoassay* or test*)) or LFA or LFIA).tw,kf. 9990
    34. (immunochromatograph* or immuno-chromatograph* or immuno-chromato-graph* or direct immunofluorescence or direct immuno-fluorescence or enzym* immunoassay* or enzym* immuno-assay* or fluorescence immunoassay* or fluorescence immuno-assay* or optical immunoassay* or optical immuno-assay*).mp. or (ICA or EIA or FIA or OIA).tw,kf. 60476
    35. ((chemiluminescen* or chemi-luminescen*) adj (immunoassay* or immuno-assay* or assay*)).mp. 4716
    36. (((mobile or portable or handheld or hand-held) adj3 (analy#er? or device? or meters or metres)) and (blood? or plasma or saliva or sputum or spit or mucus or urine or urea or urinalys* or fluids or gas or gases)).mp. 2614
    37. ((biomarker* or procalcitonin* or PCT or “c reactive protein” or “c-reactive protein” or “C-reactive protein” or CRP or leucocyte or leukocyte or neutrophil* or white blood cell count* or wbc or wbcc or sodium or partial pressure of oxygen or partial pressure O2 or PaO2 or blood count or platelet count or CBC or FBC or blood exam* or blood test* or blood draw* or haematolog* or hematolog* or haemoglobin or hemoglobin or haematocrit or hematocrit or white blood cell or red blood cell or mean platelet volume or mean corpuscular volume or mean corpuscular haemoglobin or mean corpuscular hemaglobin or platelet* or basophil* or eosinophil* or lymphocyte* or monocyte* or erythrocyte*) adj3 (guid* or direct* or steer* or inform* or algorithm-guided or algorithm-directed or algorithm-steered or algorithm-informed)).tw,kf. 18753
    38. 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 [Rapid Tests / biomarker guided management] 472216
    39. 20 and 38 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Rapid Tests / biomarker guided management] 34240
    40. exp randomized controlled trial/ 594769
    41. controlled clinical trial.pt. 95314
    42. randomized.ab. 604126
    43. placebo.ab. 238387
    44. clinical trials as topic/ 200976
    45. randomly.ab. 408822
    46. trial.ti. 285699
    47. 40 or 41 or 42 or 43 or 44 or 45 or 46 1525057
    48. exp animals/ not humans/ 5123796
    49. 47 not 48 1403647
    50. randomized controlled trial.pt. 593242
    51. (random* or “controlled trial*” or “clinical trial*” or rct).tw. 1746752
    52. 50 or 51 1865978
    53. 39 and 49 1204
    54. 39 and 52 1917
    55. 53 or 54 2039
    56. limit 55 to english language 1959
    57. limit 56 to yr=“2022 -Current” 418
    58. limit 57 to (comment or editorial or letter or news) 2
    59. 57 not 58 416
    Embase (Ovid)

    Searched: 28 May 2023

    Embase Classic+Embase <1947 to 2023 May 25>

    1. respiratory tract infection/ or lower respiratory tract infection/ or chest infection/ or exp lung infection/ 360091
    2. exp bronchitis/ or common cold/ or mononucleosis/ or exp influenza/ or laryngitis/ or laryngotracheobronchitis/ or exp pharyngitis/ or exp pneumonia/ or severe acute respiratory syndrome/ or parainfluenza virus infection/ or sore throat/ or supraglottitis/ or tonsillitis/ or exp tracheitis/ 644599
    3. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 187030
    4. ((chest or lung or lobar or pleura?) adj3 (absces* or infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 62884
    5. (bronchit* or bronchopneumon* or common cold* or glandular fever or infectious mononucleosis or flu or influenza or laryngit* or laryngotracheobronchit* or laryngo tracheo bronchit* or laryngo tracheobronchit* or laryngotracheit* or nasopharyngit* or parainfluenza or pharyngit* or pneumoni* or pleuropneumoni* or rhinopharyngit* or severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS or sore throat* or throat infection* or supraglottit* or supraglotit* or tonsillit* or tonsilit* or tracheit*).tw,kf. 731512
    6. ((acute* or exacerbat* or flare*) adj3 (copd or coad or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic obstructive airway* disease or chronic obstructive lung disease)).mp. 19358
    7. ((acute* or subacute* or exacerbat* or prolonged) adj3 cough*).mp. 2539
    8. (RTI or LRTI or URTI or ARTI or AURI or ALRI).tw,kf. 9587
    9. exp respiratory system/ and (exp virus/ or exp virus infection/) 61576
    10. exp virus pneumonia/ or exp *orthomyxovirus infection/ or exp influenza/ 146440
    11. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (nonbacter* or viral* or virus* or adenovir*)).tw,kf. 48349
    12. (rhinovir* or rhino* vir* or coryzavir* or coryza* vir* or influenzavir* or influenza* vir* or (H1N1 or H3N2) or parainfluenzavir* or parainfluenza* vir* or pneumovir* or pneumo* vir* or human metapneumovir* or human meta-pneumovir* or HMPV or respiratory syncytial vir*).mp. or RSV.tw,kf. 147895
    13. exp respiratory system/ and (exp bacterium/ or exp bacterial infection/) 92509
    14. exp bacterial pneumonia/ 38087
    15. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (bacter* or bacilli* or bacili* or corynebac* or mycobac* or nonvir* or pathogen*)).tw,kf. 31985
    16. (strep* pneumon* or diplococ* pneumon* or pneumococ* or staph* pneumon* or chlamyd* pneumon* or myco* pneumon* or influenza bacil* or bacteri* influenza* or h?emophil* influenza*).mp. 134619
    17. ((strep* adj3 (throat* or pharyn* or tonsil*)) or (strep* and (airway* or pulmonary or brochopulmonar* or brocho-pulmonar* or respiratory*))).mp. 48594
    18. (GABHS or (“group a” adj3 strep*)).tw,kf. 14181
    19. strep* pyogen*.mp. 22698
    20. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 1474981
    21. point of care system/ 3810
    22. (POCT or POCTs or (((point adj2 care) or poc) adj3 (analys* or antigen or assay* or device? or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or platform? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or (cassette? or dipstick? or film* or stick or strip or fluorescent antibod*)))).tw,kf. 29715
    23. (point adj2 care).ti,kf. 20377
    24. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or rapid* or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 (analys* or antigen? or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or fluorescent antibod*)).tw,kf. 265872
    25. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 rapid*).tw,kf. 961
    26. rapid test/ or influenza A rapid test/ or streptococcus group A rapid test/ 8381
    27. (rapid* adj3 (detect* or diagnos* or screen*)).tw,kf. 90602
    28. (time-to-result? or ((quick* or rapid* or short* or time*) adj3 (turnaround or turn-around))).tw,kf. 14966
    29. (antigen? adj3 (analys* or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test*)).tw,kf. 123967
    30. (RADT or RADTs or RDT or RDTs).tw,kf. 5327
    31. (rapid molecular or multiplex*).mp. 115336
    32. lab-on-a-chip.tw,kf. 3683
    33. ((lateral flow adj (assay* or immunoassay* or test*)) or LFA or LFIA).tw,kf. 11987
    34. (immunochromatograph* or immuno-chromatograph* or immuno-chromato-graph* or direct immunofluorescence or direct immuno-fluorescence or enzym* immunoassay* or enzym* immuno-assay* or fluorescence immunoassay* or fluorescence immuno-assay* or optical immunoassay* or optical immuno-assay*).mp. or (ICA or EIA or FIA or OIA).tw,kf. 111334
    35. ((chemiluminescen* or chemi-luminescen*) adj (immunoassay* or immuno-assay* or assay*)).mp. 18319
    36. (((mobile or portable or handheld or hand-held) adj3 (analy#er? or device? or meters or metres)) and (blood? or plasma or saliva or sputum or spit or mucus or urine or urea or urinalys* or fluids or gas or gases)).mp. 4058
    37. ((biomarker* or procalcitonin* or PCT or “c reactive protein” or “c-reactive protein” or “C-reactive protein” or CRP or leucocyte or leukocyte or neutrophil* or white blood cell count* or wbc or wbcc or sodium or partial pressure of oxygen or partial pressure O2 or PaO2 or blood count or platelet count or CBC or FBC or blood exam* or blood test* or blood draw* or haematolog* or hematolog* or haemoglobin or hemoglobin or haematocrit or hematocrit or white blood cell or red blood cell or mean platelet volume or mean corpuscular volume or mean corpuscular haemoglobin or mean corpuscular hemaglobin or platelet* or basophil* or eosinophil* or lymphocyte* or monocyte* or erythrocyte*) adj3 (guid* or direct* or steer* or inform* or algorithm-guided or algorithm-directed or algorithm-steered or algorithm-informed)).tw,kf. 29271
    38. 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 682176
    39. 37 and 20 1955
    40. exp randomized controlled trial/ 790418
    41. controlled clinical trial/ 469623
    42. random$.ti,ab. 1981362
    43. randomization/ 99460
    44. intermethod comparison/ 297400
    45. placebo.ti,ab. 371225
    46. (compare or compared or comparison).ti,ab. 7771662
    47. ((evaluated or evaluate or evaluating or assessed or assess) and (compare or compared or comparing or comparison)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer, device trade name, keyword heading word, floating subheading word, candidate term word] 2981040
    48. (open adj label).ti,ab. 109052
    49. ((double or single or doubly or singly) adj (blind or blinded or blindly)).ti,ab. 280099
    50. double blind procedure/ 213168
    51. parallel group$1.ti,ab. 32267
    52. (crossover or cross over).ti,ab. 125950
    53. ((assign$ or match or matched or allocation) adj5 (alternate or group$1 or intervention$1 or patient$1 or subject$1 or participant$1)).ti,ab. 417487
    54. (assigned or allocated).ti,ab. 491973
    55. (controlled adj7 (study or design or trial)).ti,ab. 454826
    56. (volunteer or volunteers).ti,ab. 288594
    57. human experiment/ 651776
    58. trial.ti. 411431
    59. or/40-58 10289233
    60. (random$ adj sampl$ adj7 (“cross section$” or questionnaire$1 or survey$ or database$1)).ti,ab. not (comparative study/ or controlled study/ or randomied controlled.ti,ab. or randomly assigned.ti,ab.) 9599
    61. cross-sectional study/ not (exp randomized controlled trial/ or controlled clinical trial/ or controlled study/ or randomi?ed controlled.ti,ab. or control group$1.ti,ab.) 347803
    62. ((case adj control$).mp. and random$.ti,ab.) not randomi?ed controlled.ti,ab. [mp=title, abstract, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer, device trade name, keyword heading word, floating subheading word, candidate term word] 26076
    63. systematic review.ti,ab. not (trial or study).ti. 326205
    64. (nonrandom$ not random$).ti,ab. 19058
    65. ‘random field$’.ti,ab. 2951
    66. (random cluster adj3 sampl$).ti,ab. 1542
    67. (review.ab. and review.pt.) not trial.ti. 1117857
    68. “we searched”.ab. and (review.ti. or review.pt.) 49790
    69. “update review”.ab. 138
    70. (databases adj4 searched).ab. 62434
    71. (rat or rats or mouse or mice or swine or porcine or murine or sheep or lambs or pigs or piglets or rabbit or rabbits or cat or cats or dog or dogs or cattle or bovine or monkey or monkeys or trout or marmoset$1).ti. and animal experiment/ 1227348
    72. animal experiment/ not (human experiment/ or human/) 2581423
    73. or/60-72 4378964
    74. 59 not 73 8989986
    75. 39 and 74 681
    76. limit 75 to english language 672
    77. limit 76 to yr=“2022 -Current” 89
    78. limit 77 to (conference abstract or conference paper or “conference review” or editorial or letter) 20
    79. 77 not 78 69

    Searches for cost-effectiveness

    MEDLINE (Ovid)

    Searched: 16 May 2023

    Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL <1946 to May 15, 2023>

    1. Respiratory Tract Infections/ 42626
    2. exp Bronchitis/ or Common Cold/ or Infectious Mononucleosis/ or Influenza, Human/ or Laryngitis/ or exp Pharyngitis/ or exp Pneumonia/ or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/ 435829
    3. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 122748
    4. ((chest or lung? or lobar or pleura?) adj3 (absces* or infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 44790
    5. (bronchit* or bronchopneumon* or common cold* or glandular fever or infectious mononucleosis or flu or influenza or laryngit* or laryngotracheobronchit* or laryngo tracheo bronchit* or laryngo tracheobronchit* or laryngotracheit* or nasopharyngit* or parainfluenza or pharyngit* or pneumoni* or pleuropneumoni* or rhinopharyngit* or severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS or sore throat* or throat infection* or supraglottit* or supraglotit* or tonsillit* or tonsilit* or tracheit*).tw,kf. 522522
    6. ((acute* or exacerbat* or flare*) adj3 (copd or coad or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic obstructive airway* disease or chronic obstructive lung disease)).mp. 10295
    7. ((acute* or subacute* or exacerbat* or prolonged) adj3 cough*).mp. 1546
    8. (RTI or LRTI or URTI or ARTI or AURI or ALRI).tw,kf. 6307
    9. exp Respiratory System/ and (exp Viruses/ or exp Virus Diseases/) 35000
    10. exp pneumonia, viral/ or *orthomyxoviridae infections/ or influenza, human/ 290911
    11. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (nonbacter* or viral* or virus* or adenovir*)).tw,kf. 35861
    12. (rhinovir* or rhino* vir* or coryzavir* or coryza* vir* or influenzavir* or influenza* vir* or (H1N1 or H3N2) or parainfluenzavir* or parainfluenza* vir* or pneumovir* or pneumo* vir* or human metapneumovir* or human meta-pneumovir* or HMPV or respiratory syncytial vir*).mp. or RSV.tw,kf. 138900
    13. exp Respiratory System/ and (exp Bacteria/ or exp Bacterial Infections/) 48073
    14. pneumonia, bacterial/ or chlamydial pneumonia/ or pneumonia, mycoplasma/ or pneumonia, pneumococcal/ or pneumonia, staphylococcal/ 22813
    15. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (bacter* or bacilli* or bacili* or corynebac* or mycobac* or nonvir* or pathogen*)).tw,kf. 22642
    16. (strep* pneumon* or diplococ* pneumon* or pneumococ* or staph* pneumon* or chlamyd* pneumon* or myco* pneumon* or influenza bacil* or bacteri* influenza* or h?emophil* influenza*).mp. 80781
    17. ((strep* adj3 (throat* or pharyn* or tonsil*)) or (strep* and (airway* or pulmonary or brochopulmonar* or brocho-pulmonar* or respiratory*))).mp. 22162
    18. (GABHS or (“group a” adj3 strep*)).tw,kf. 10727
    19. strep* pyogen*.mp. 18540
    20. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection] 961136
    21. Point-of-Care Systems/ 16387
    22. (POCT or POCTs or (((point adj2 care) or poc) adj3 (analys* or antigen? or assay* or device? or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or platform? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or (cassette? or dipstick? or film* or stick or strip or fluorescent antibod*)))).tw,kf. 21725
    23. (point adj2 care).ti,kf. 15063
    24. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or rapid* or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 (analys* or antigen? or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or fluorescent antibod*)).tw,kf. 204660
    25. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 rapid*).tw,kf. 637
    26. Rapid Diagnostic Tests/ 43
    27. (rapid* adj3 (detect* or diagnos* or screen*)).tw,kf. 71754
    28. (time-to-result? or ((quick* or rapid* or short* or time*) adj3 (turnaround or turn-around))).tw,kf. 8119
    29. (antigen? adj3 (analys* or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test*)).tw,kf. 90810
    30. (RADT or RADTs or RDT or RDTs).tw,kf. 3318
    31. (rapid molecular or multiplex*).mp. 73027
    32. lab-on-a-chip.tw,kf. 3504
    33. ((lateral flow adj (assay* or immunoassay* or test*)) or LFA or LFIA).tw,kf. 9974
    34. (immunochromatograph* or immuno-chromatograph* or immuno-chromato-graph* or direct immunofluorescence or direct immuno-fluorescence or enzym* immunoassay* or enzym* immuno-assay* or fluorescence immunoassay* or fluorescence immuno-assay* or optical immunoassay* or optical immuno-assay*).mp. or (ICA or EIA or FIA or OIA).tw,kf. 60440
    35. ((chemiluminescen* or chemi-luminescen*) adj (immunoassay* or immuno-assay* or assay*)).mp. 4700
    36. (((mobile or portable or handheld or hand-held) adj3 (analy#er? or device? or meters or metres)) and (blood? or plasma or saliva or sputum or spit or mucus or urine or urea or urinalys* or fluids or gas or gases)).mp. 2611
    37. 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 [Rapid Tests] 453799
    38. 20 and 37 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Rapid Tests] 33110
    39. exp Diagnosis/ 9337079
    40. di.fs. 2925815
    41. diagnos*.ti,ab,kf. 3041447
    42. (test or tests or testing).ti,ab,kf. 2837989
    43. 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 [Diagnosis / Testing (broad)] 12968950
    44. 20 and 43 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Diagnosis / Testing (broad)] 420239
    45. Cost-Benefit Analysis/ 92348
    46. (cost* and (((qualit* adj2 adjust*) and life*) or qaly*)).tw,kf. 17443
    47. ((incremental* adj2 cost*) or ICER).tw,kf. 17647
    48. (cost adj2 utilit*).tw,kf. 7139
    49. (cost* and ((net adj benefit*) or ((net adj monetary) and benefit*) or ((net adj health) and benefit*))).tw,kf. 2345
    50. ((cost adj2 effect*) and ((quality adj of) and life)).tw,kf. 12651
    51. (cost and (effect* or utilit*)).ti. 38213
    52. 45 or 46 or 47 or 48 or 49 or 50 or 51 113868 [cost-utility filter – precise version - based on Hubbard et al 2022]
    53. 38 and 52 203
    54. 44 and 52 1292
    55. 53 or 54 1301
    56. limit 55 to english language 1238
    57. limit 56 to (comment or editorial or letter or news or newspaper article) 56
    58. 56 not 57 1182
    Embase (Ovid)

    Searched: 18 May 2023

    Embase Classic+Embase <1947 to 2023 May 17>

    1. respiratory tract infection/ or lower respiratory tract infection/ or chest infection/ or exp lung infection/ 359718
    2. exp bronchitis/ or common cold/ or mononucleosis/ or exp influenza/ or laryngitis/ or laryngotracheobronchitis/ or exp pharyngitis/ or exp pneumonia/ or severe acute respiratory syndrome/ or parainfluenza virus infection/ or sore throat/ or supraglottitis/ or tonsillitis/ or exp tracheitis/ 643746
    3. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 186780
    4. ((chest or lung or lobar or pleura?) adj3 (absces* or infect* or coinfect* or inflamm*)).tw,kf. 62801
    5. (bronchit* or bronchopneumon* or common cold* or glandular fever or infectious mononucleosis or flu or influenza or laryngit* or laryngotracheobronchit* or laryngo tracheo bronchit* or laryngo tracheobronchit* or laryngotracheit* or nasopharyngit* or parainfluenza or pharyngit* or pneumoni* or pleuropneumoni* or rhinopharyngit* or severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS or sore throat* or throat infection* or supraglottit* or supraglotit* or tonsillit* or tonsilit* or tracheit*).tw,kf. 730007
    6. ((acute* or exacerbat* or flare*) adj3 (copd or coad or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic obstructive airway* disease or chronic obstructive lung disease)).mp. 19331
    7. ((acute* or subacute* or exacerbat* or prolonged) adj3 cough*).mp. 2536
    8. (RTI or LRTI or URTI or ARTI or AURI or ALRI).tw,kf. 9584
    9. exp respiratory system/ and (exp virus/ or exp virus infection/) 61466
    10. exp virus pneumonia/ or exp *orthomyxovirus infection/ or exp influenza/ 146242
    11. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (nonbacter* or viral* or virus* or adenovir*)).tw,kf. 48279
    12. (rhinovir* or rhino* vir* or coryzavir* or coryza* vir* or influenzavir* or influenza* vir* or (H1N1 or H3N2) or parainfluenzavir* or parainfluenza* vir* or pneumovir* or pneumo* vir* or human metapneumovir* or human meta-pneumovir* or HMPV or respiratory syncytial vir*).mp. or RSV.tw,kf. 147754
    13. exp respiratory system/ and (exp bacterium/ or exp bacterial infection/) 92429
    14. exp bacterial pneumonia/ 38054
    15. ((airway* or bronchopulmonar* or broncho-pulmonar* or tracheobronch* or tracheo-bronch* or pulmonar* tract or pulmonary or respirat* tract or respiratory) adj3 (bacter* or bacilli* or bacili* or corynebac* or mycobac* or nonvir* or pathogen*)).tw,kf. 31947
    16. (strep* pneumon* or diplococ* pneumon* or pneumococ* or staph* pneumon* or chlamyd* pneumon* or myco* pneumon* or influenza bacil* or bacteri* influenza* or h?emophil* influenza*).mp. 134532
    17. ((strep* adj3 (throat* or pharyn* or tonsil*)) or (strep* and (airway* or pulmonary or brochopulmonar* or brocho-pulmonar* or respiratory*))).mp. 48553
    18. (GABHS or (“group a” adj3 strep*)).tw,kf. 14167
    19. strep* pyogen*.mp. 22673
    20. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection] 1472567
    21. point of care system/ 3800
    22. (POCT or POCTs or (((point adj2 care) or poc) adj3 (analys* or antigen or assay* or device? or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or platform? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or (cassette? or dipstick? or film* or stick or strip or fluorescent antibod*)))).tw,kf. 29627
    23. (point adj2 care).ti,kf. 20316
    24. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or rapid* or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 (analys* or antigen? or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or screen* or system* or technique* or test* or fluorescent antibod*)).tw,kf. 265505
    25. (((near adj2 patient) or nearpatient or bedside? or bed-side? or extra-laboratory or extralaboratory) adj3 rapid*).tw,kf. 957
    26. rapid test/ or influenza A rapid test/ or streptococcus group A rapid test/ 8357
    27. (rapid* adj3 (detect* or diagnos* or screen*)).tw,kf. 90455
    28. (time-to-result? or ((quick* or rapid* or short* or time*) adj3 (turnaround or turn-around))).tw,kf. 14929
    29. (antigen? adj3 (analys* or assay* or immunoassay* or classif* or detect* or determin* or diagnos* or differenti* or identif* or method* or kit or kits or panel? or predict* or rapid or routine* or screen* or system* or technique* or test*)).tw,kf. 123850
    30. (RADT or RADTs or RDT or RDTs).tw,kf. 5314
    31. (rapid molecular or multiplex*).mp. 115150
    32. lab-on-a-chip.tw,kf. 3675
    33. ((lateral flow adj (assay* or immunoassay* or test*)) or LFA or LFIA).tw,kf. 11972
    34. (immunochromatograph* or immuno-chromatograph* or immuno-chromato-graph* or direct immunofluorescence or direct immuno-fluorescence or enzym* immunoassay* or enzym* immuno-assay* or fluorescence immunoassay* or fluorescence immuno-assay* or optical immunoassay* or optical immuno-assay*).mp. or (ICA or EIA or FIA or OIA).tw,kf. 111218
    35. ((chemiluminescen* or chemi-luminescen*) adj (immunoassay* or immuno-assay* or assay*)).mp. 18247
    36. (((mobile or portable or handheld or hand-held) adj3 (analy#er? or device? or meters or metres)) and (blood? or plasma or saliva or sputum or spit or mucus or urine or urea or urinalys* or fluids or gas or gases)).mp. 4050
    37. 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 [Rapid Tests] 653734
    38. 20 and 37 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Rapid Tests] 53242
    39. exp diagnosis/ 8484048
    40. di.fs. 3725926
    41. diagnos*.ti,ab,kf. 4672696
    42. (test or tests or testing).ti,ab,kf. 4221212
    43. 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 [Diagnosis / Testing (broad)] 13703963
    44. 20 and 43 [RTIs / RTI Viral Infection / RTI Bacterial Infection AND Diagnosis / Testing (broad)] 649809
    45. cost utility analysis/ 12221
    46. (cost* and (((qualit* adj2 adjust*) and life*) or qaly*)).tw,kf. 30502
    47. ((incremental* adj2 cost*) or ICER).tw,kf. 30673
    48. (cost adj2 utilit*).tw,kf. 11663
    49. (cost* and ((net adj benefit*) or ((net adj monetary) and benefit*) or ((net adj health) and benefit*))).tw,kf. 3360
    50. ((cost adj2 effect*) and ((quality adj of) and life)).tw,kf. 19438
    51. (cost and (effect* or utilit*)).ti. 57091
    52. 45 or 46 or 47 or 48 or 49 or 50 or 51 [cost-utility filter – precise version - based on Hubbard et al 2022] 91298
    53. 38 and 52 186
    54. 44 and 52 1108
    55. 53 or 54 1121
    56. limit 55 to english language 1087
    57. limit 56 to (conference abstract or conference paper or “conference review” or editorial or letter) 261
    58. 56 not 57 826
    CEA Registry

    https://cear.tuftsmedicalcenter.org/

    Searched: 18 May 2023

    Methods tab selected

    #1.

    Keyword is: rapid and Disease (ICD-10) is: 10 [Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)] = 19 articles

    #2.

    Keyword is: point-of-care and Disease (ICD-10) is: 10 [Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)] = 6 articles

    #3.

    Keyword is: point of care and Disease (ICD-10) is: 10 [Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)] = 15 articles

    #4.

    Keyword is: bedside and Disease (ICD-10) is: 10 [Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)] = 1 article

    #5.

    Keyword is: near-patient and Disease (ICD-10) is: 10 [Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)] = 1 article

    #6.

    Keyword is: near patient and Disease (ICD-10) is: 10 [Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)] = 3 articles

    #7.

    Keyword is: extra-laboratory and Disease (ICD-10) is: 10 [Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)] = 0 articles

    #8.

    Keyword is: extra laboratory and Disease (ICD-10) is: 10 [Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)] = 0 articles

    • Total: 45
    • Total after duplicates removed: 35
    • Total after duplicates found in MEDLINE or Embase removed: 17

    Appendix 3. Study flow diagram: Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness

    Download PDF (271K)

    Modified from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [PMC free article: PMC8005924] [PubMed: 33782057] [CrossRef]

    Appendix 4. Excluded systematic reviews

    Appendix 5. Study flow diagram: RCTs

    Download PDF (271K)

    Modified from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [PMC free article: PMC8005924] [PubMed: 33782057] [CrossRef]

    Appendix 7. Studies excluded from the clinical effectiveness review

    Appendix 8. Explanation of sample size adjustment

    An adjustment to the sample size must be made to cluster trials before they can be included in a meta-analysis with individually randomised trials. Instead of extracting this adjusted data from the Smedemark16 review directly, we decided to also perform the calculations. We carried out this adjustment by dividing the total numbers in each arm and the event numbers in each arm by a quantity called the ‘design effect’, as advised in the Cochrane Handbook.17 The design effect for each cluster randomised trial can be calculated using the below formula:

    1+(M1)×ICC
    where M is the average cluster size and ICC is the intracluster correlation coefficient. We estimated the average cluster size by dividing the total sample size by the number of clusters in each trial. We believe this is the same approach that the Smedemark authors followed.

    After using the adjustment described above, our numbers differed slightly to those presented in the Smedemark review16 for some trials.25, 27, 37 Since the raw numbers extracted from primary studies are not presented in the said review, it is difficult to fully account for these differences. Here, we present values used in the calculation of the design effect, then we compare our adjusted sample sizes to those presented in Smedemark and discuss potential reasons for the discrepancies.

    Table 15. Numbers and event numbers in each arm for each included outcome and detail of information used to calculate the design effect (PDF, 177K)

    Table 16. Adjusted sample size calculated using the design effect and the adjusted sample size numbers used in Smedemark review (PDF, 176K)

    Table 15 shows the parameters used in the calculation of the design effect for each included study and outcome. Table 16 shows the adjusted sample size numbers we calculated and those presented in the Smedemark16 review.

    Andreeva29 didn’t report the ICC value which means the design effect cannot be calculated. Smedemark16 contacted the Andreeva29 authors and obtained additional information. We presume they obtained the ICC value which allowed them to calculate the adjusted sample sizes presented in the review. The reivew also included two additonal outcomes (‘Number of re-consultations within 14 days’ and ‘Hospital admission (timeframe unclear)’) that were not presented in the Andreeva paper, which we assume were also obtained when the review authors contacted the Andreeva authors. Therefore, we used the adjusted numbers presented in the Smedemark review for the Andreeva study (see Table 16).

    The adjusted numbers that we calculated for Boere27 are almost identical to the Smedemark review16 (see Table 16). There are small differences for outcomes ‘Hospital admission within 3 weeks’ and ‘Mortality rate within 3 weeks’, but we believe these are likely due to rounding and will have a negligble impact on the resulting meta-analysis. For this study, we included an additional outcome (‘Antibiotic use at index consultation; COPD patients’) that was not included in the review.

    We noticed an inconsistency in the reported primary outcome numbers in Boere.27 In the abstract, the paper reports n=84 patients prescribed antibiotics at index consultaiton in the C-reative protein (CRP) test group. However, Table 16 infers that this value should be 89 (73 antibiotic prescriptions avoided; 162-73=89). We believe Smedemark16 used n=84 for the number of antibiotics prescribed at index consulation in the CRP group and we too chose to use this value.

    Our calculated adjusted values match the numbers presented in Smedemark exactly for the Cals26, 35 study. Note however that the Cals paper reports an ICC of 0.01 for the outcome of ‘Number of re-consultations within 28 days’, which is different to the ICCs (0.12) for outcomes ‘Antibiotics prescribed at index consultation’ and ‘Antibiotics prescribed within 28 days’. We believe Smedemark used 0.12 in the adjustment of all outcomes. We obtained data for mortality and hospitalisation from the text in Cals (“no serious adverse events (death or admission to hospital) occurred”), meaning that there were no reported ICCs for these outcomes. Therefore, for consistency across all outcomes and with the Smedemark review, we chose to use an ICC of 0.12 for all outcomes from Cals. For the outcomes extracted from the text, we assumed the denominators were equal to those for the other reported outcomes (n=227 CRP group; n=204 ususal care group).

    The Little25, 37 study used a 2x2 factorial design and randomised patients to one of four interventions: CRP test, usual care, CRP test with GP communication training and usual care with GP communication training. In the main analysis, the authors combined these four groups and adjusted for the effect of communication training. In other words, the CRP and CRP+communication training groups were combined, and the usual care and usual care+communicaiton training groups were combined, and the model adjusted for the effect of communication training. We believe the Smedemark16 review used these combined numbers in the calculation of the adjusted sample size. However, since the raw numbers of these groups combined do not adjust for communication training, we decided to use the numbers for CRP test only versus usual care only and used the corresponding number of clusters for these groups. We extracted numbers from the supplementary data given in Little 201325 for ‘re-consultations for new or worse symptoms within 28 days’.

    Further, we believe the authors of the Smedemark16 review have incorrectly interpreted the timescale of the primary outcome. The timeframe for the primary outcome (antibiotic prescribing) is unclear from the Little 201325 paper. Smedemark believe that the primary outcome refers to ‘Antibiotics prescribed at index consultation’. However, we believe that this outcome actually reflects the antibiotics prescribed within 3 months. This is clearer in the Little 201937 publication. The authors state that in the usual care group “58% (508 of 870) were prescribed antibiotics at 3 months” and in the CRP group “(368 of 1,062) at 3 months”. These values match those presented in the Little 201325 publication supplementary material. We therefore exclude Little 201325 from our meta-analysis of antibiotic use at index consultation.

    In addition, we believe Smedemark16 used an ICC of 0.08 in their calculations. However, we chose to use an ICC of 0.05 since this ICC controls for baseline antibiotic prescribing (see supplementary material Little 201325). Finally, we extracted data for outcomes ‘Hospital admissions (timeframe unclear)’ and ‘Mortality (timeframe unclear)’ from the text of Little 201325 (“30 patients were reported as being admitted to hospital (two in the usual-care group, ten in the CRP group”; “No patients died”). We assumed the denominators were the same as at the beginning of the study (n=1062 CRP group; n=870 usual care group).

    These reasons combined explain the marked differences in the adjusted sample sizes for the Little25, 37 study. No additional outcome data was obtained from the Little 201937 publication.

    Appendix 10. GRADE tables

    GRADE evidence tables are presented below for C-reactive protein, procalcitonin and influenza rapid antigen tests. No evidence for the relevant outcomes was identified for Group A streptococcus rapid antigen tests.

    Table 22. Clinical evidence profile for comparison of C-reactive POCT versus usual care in adults with suspected ARI (PDF, 266K)

    Table 23. Clinical evidence profile for comparison of procalcitonin POCT versus usual care in adults with suspected ARI (PDF, 259K)

    Table 24. Clinical evidence profile for comparison of rapid antigen tests for influenza versus usual care in adults with suspected ARI (PDF, 256K)

    Appendix 11. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses for clinical effectiveness outcomes

    Download PDF (251K)

    Appendix 12. Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness studies

    Download PDF (216K)

    Appendix 13. References of excluded studies at full texts and primary reason for exclusion

    Download PDF (209K)

    Appendix 14. Applicability of included cost utility studies to our review question

    Download PDF (310K)