SynthesisPloS one2024
Within-subject variation of C-reactive protein and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effects of hesperidin supplementation on inflammation and oxidative stress in overweight or obese individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Swabs versus native specimens in severe head and neck infections: a prospective pilot study and suggestions for clinical management.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Within-individual variation of C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements in primary care: A retrospective cohort study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundC-reactive protein (CRP) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) are measures of inflammation used in diagnosis, to guide treatment decisions, and in disease prediction. Variability in measured CRP and hsCRP may affect their clinical utility but estimates of within-subject variability are based on limited data.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to estimate longitudinal within-subject variability of CRP and hsCRP over any time period. Follow-up studies of any design in adults or children, with repeated measures of CRP or hsCRP were sought. Multiple databases were searched from inception to November 2022. Titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. Full text screening and data extraction were performed by one reviewer and verified by a second. Risk of bias was assessed with a modified Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) tool. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) results were pooled with a meta-analysis and coefficient of variation (CV) results were described by median and range.
resultsOf 2675 studies identified, 60 met the inclusion criteria: 34 reported CRP and 26 reported hsCRP. For CRP, median CV was 0.41 (range 0.11 to 0.89), and the pooled estimate of ICC was 0.55 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.74). For hsCRP, median CV was 0.44 (range 0.27 to 0.76) and the pooled estimate of ICC was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67). LIMITATIONS: Assessment of variability was not the main aim of many of the included papers, and it is possible that some relevant papers have been missed. Many of the papers included had low numbers of participants and/or low numbers of repeated measurements.
conclusionsEstimated within-subject variability is high for both CRP and hsCRP, but estimates are based on small numbers of participants and measurements. There is a need for better estimates of within-subject variability from analysis of larger numbers of repeated measurements in larger numbers of subjects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.