Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy

Jessica Watson, Hayley E Jones, Jonathan Banks, Penny Whiting, Chris Salisbury and Willie Hamilton
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): e462-e469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X704309
Jessica Watson
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: NIHR doctoral research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hayley E Jones
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Senior lecturer in medical statistics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan Banks
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Penny Whiting
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Senior lecturer in epidemiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Salisbury
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Professor in primary health care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Willie Hamilton
University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Roles: Professor of primary care diagnostics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

eLetter submission guidelines

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com. PLEASE NOTE: your email address will be published.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Repeat inflammatory marker testing - authors reply
    Jessica Watson, Chris Salisbury, Penny Whiting, Jonathan Banks and Willie Hamilton
    Published on: 15 November 2019
  • Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy
    Ibrahim Hassan
    Published on: 05 November 2019
  • Only part of a cascade
    Peter von Kaehne
    Published on: 03 July 2019
  • Published on: (15 November 2019)
    Page navigation anchor for Repeat inflammatory marker testing - authors reply
    Repeat inflammatory marker testing - authors reply
    • Jessica Watson, GP and NIHR Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Bristol
    • Other Contributors:
      • Chris Salisbury, Professor of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol
      • Penny Whiting, Associate Professor in Clinical Epidemiology, University of Bristol
      • Jonathan Banks, Research Fellow, University of Bristol
      • Willie Hamilton, Professor of Primary Care Diagnostics, University of Exeter
    Thank you to Hassan for pointing out the importance of taking into account the trend in inflammatory markers when interpreting test results. In table 1 of the linked paper1 we were able to look at the impact of repeat testing, and we can share further details of this analysis for clarification. Patients with an initial raised inflammatory marker which subsequently returned to normal had a lower overall incidence of disease at 18.6% compared to those with persistently raised inflammatory markers where overall disease incidence was 23.8%. Subdividing further for the most commonly used test, CRP, we found that a second abnormal test which is higher than the first (rising trend) had the highest overall disease incidence at 26.6%; those with a second abnormal test which was lower than the first but still above the upper limit of normal (stable or falling trend) had a dise...
    Show More
    Thank you to Hassan for pointing out the importance of taking into account the trend in inflammatory markers when interpreting test results. In table 1 of the linked paper1 we were able to look at the impact of repeat testing, and we can share further details of this analysis for clarification. Patients with an initial raised inflammatory marker which subsequently returned to normal had a lower overall incidence of disease at 18.6% compared to those with persistently raised inflammatory markers where overall disease incidence was 23.8%. Subdividing further for the most commonly used test, CRP, we found that a second abnormal test which is higher than the first (rising trend) had the highest overall disease incidence at 26.6%; those with a second abnormal test which was lower than the first but still above the upper limit of normal (stable or falling trend) had a disease incidence of 22.3%. This is in keeping with Hassan’s expectation that interpreting results in the context of previous test results provides additional information. However, clinicians should not be excessively reassured by repeat testing; patients with a repeat test which returns to normal have a higher overall disease incidence (18.6%), compared to patients with a raised inflammatory marker which was not repeated (12.5%). This presumably reflects the fact that the GPs decision to repeat the test meant they were suspicious that the patient was ill. This is in keeping with other research showing that the GPs decision to test may be more predictive than the test result.2 
     
    References
    1. Watson J, Salisbury C, Whiting P, Banks J, Pyne Y, Hamilton W. Added value and cascade effects of inflammatory marker tests in UK primary care: a cohort study from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Br J Gen Pract 2019; 69(684): e470-e478. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704321
    2. Watson J, Bailey S, Hamilton F, Hamilton W, Mounce L. Lessons from biases in electronic health record data: the importance of clinical vigilance with negative test results. BMJ (letter). Available at www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1479/rr-0.
     
    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (5 November 2019)
    Page navigation anchor for Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy
    Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy
    • Ibrahim Hassan, GP Partner, Sandringham Practice, Intake, Doncaster
    Thanks to Jessica Watson et al1 for their very useful research paper. This touches on one aspect of the very topical issue of over investigation. This is a real problem which sometimes gives the impression that investigations are used as a substitute to a thorough history and examination.
     
    I would like to know if for the purposes of this research, when assessing the predictive value of current raised inflammatory markers,...
    Show More
    Thanks to Jessica Watson et al1 for their very useful research paper. This touches on one aspect of the very topical issue of over investigation. This is a real problem which sometimes gives the impression that investigations are used as a substitute to a thorough history and examination.
     
    I would like to know if for the purposes of this research, when assessing the predictive value of current raised inflammatory markers, the results of previous inflammatory markers have been compared with current one.
     
    This is because for a patient who has had inflammatory marker checked previously, a current high level of that inflammatory markers that is within the range of their previous levels is likely to be less predictive of relevant disease compared to a high level which is significantly higher than their previous levels.
     
    Therefore, while I agree with the conclusion, however in patients who have had previous inflammatory markers, interpretation of significance of a current test result taking into account the previous levels should increase ability to rule out (new/worsening) relevant disease.
     
    Reference
    1.  Watson J, Jones HE, Banks K et al. Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy.  Br J Gen Pract 2019;69(684):e462-e469. 
     
    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (3 July 2019)
    Page navigation anchor for Only part of a cascade
    Only part of a cascade
    • Peter von Kaehne, General practitioner, Lochgoilhead Medical Centre
    While being a useful reminder that sick folk can have normal tests and vice versa, the article misses the point that many (most?) GPs will use inflammatory markers as the concluding part of a cascade, not the begin and end of it.
     
    A patient with an unconcerning history, normal examination findings and normal inflammatory markers is a patient with a high likelihood of being actually well. In absence of sharper tests for being physically well (even if worried) such cascades remain the norm and rightly so for filtering the sick or potentially sick from those we can reassure. On the other side, worry...
    Show More
    While being a useful reminder that sick folk can have normal tests and vice versa, the article misses the point that many (most?) GPs will use inflammatory markers as the concluding part of a cascade, not the begin and end of it.
     
    A patient with an unconcerning history, normal examination findings and normal inflammatory markers is a patient with a high likelihood of being actually well. In absence of sharper tests for being physically well (even if worried) such cascades remain the norm and rightly so for filtering the sick or potentially sick from those we can reassure. On the other side, worrying findings or history are clearly not assuaged by a normal CRP on its own.
     
    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (684)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 684
July 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy
Jessica Watson, Hayley E Jones, Jonathan Banks, Penny Whiting, Chris Salisbury, Willie Hamilton
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): e462-e469. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704309

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy
Jessica Watson, Hayley E Jones, Jonathan Banks, Penny Whiting, Chris Salisbury, Willie Hamilton
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): e462-e469. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704309
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • blood plasma
  • blood tests
  • C-reactive protein
  • erythrocyte sedimentation rate
  • primary care

More in this TOC Section

  • Prognostic factors for persistent fatigue after COVID-19: a prospective matched cohort study in primary care
  • Home monitoring by pulse oximetry of primary care patients with COVID-19: a pilot randomised controlled trial
  • Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions to improve mental health in deprived populations: a systematic review
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242