C-Reactive Protein Testing Market by Product (Instruments, Reagents & Kits, Software & Services), Technology (Elisa, Immunoturbidimetric, Nephelometry), Test Type, Sample Type, End User, Application - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The C-Reactive Protein Testing Market was valued at USD 1.69 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 1.89 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 12.77%, reaching USD 4.43 billion by 2032.
Strategic introduction to C-reactive protein testing highlighting clinical importance, diagnostic evolution, and implications for patient management and policy
C-reactive protein testing occupies a central role in clinical diagnostics as a rapid, accessible biomarker of inflammation used across primary care, acute care, and research contexts. Its relevance has expanded beyond traditional inflammatory disease monitoring to support cardiovascular risk assessment, infection triage, and the evaluation of chronic disease trajectories. As clinical pathways evolve, CRP assays are increasingly positioned at the intersection of laboratory-grade accuracy and point-of-care convenience, demanding clarity on performance trade-offs, workflow integration, and result interpretation.
This executive summary synthesizes the critical themes that decision-makers must consider when investing in CRP testing capability. It frames the diagnostic landscape in terms of technological innovation, regulatory and reimbursement pressures, supply chain dynamics, and clinical adoption patterns. Readers are guided through areas of strategic importance-assay selection, deployment models, and stakeholder collaboration-so that healthcare leaders and industry strategists can prioritize interventions that align diagnostic performance with patient care objectives and operational realities.
Transformative shifts reshaping CRP testing pathways driven by point-of-care adoption, assay innovation, digital integration, and collaborative research
The CRP testing landscape is experiencing transformative shifts driven by technological miniaturization, digital connectivity, and a stronger emphasis on decentralized care. Point-of-care analyzers are pushing diagnostic capabilities closer to the patient, narrowing the gap between symptom onset and clinical decision-making. At the same time, laboratory analyzers are evolving to deliver higher throughput and integrated data outputs that support longitudinal patient management. These parallel trajectories are reshaping procurement priorities and clinical protocols as stakeholders weigh the operational benefits of rapid results against the need for standardized assay performance.
Assay chemistry innovations are another major axis of change. The maturation of high-sensitivity CRP formats has expanded use cases into cardiovascular risk stratification while improved immunoturbidimetric and nephelometric platforms have enhanced reproducibility for routine diagnostics. Alongside chemistry, software and data services are emerging as differentiators: data management platforms and consulting services enable quality assurance, remote monitoring, and analytics-driven decision support. Consequently, organizations must consider end-to-end solutions rather than discrete products, integrating instruments, reagents, and digital layers to achieve measurable clinical and operational improvements.
Finally, collaborative research and regulatory clarity are accelerating iterative improvement. Cross-sector partnerships among device manufacturers, clinical networks, and academic centers support validation studies and real-world evidence generation, while clearer regulatory pathways help translate innovations into practice. Together, these shifts create opportunities for stakeholders that anticipate integrated workflows and prioritize interoperability, reproducibility, and clinician-centric reporting.
Cumulative impact of United States tariff changes on supply chains, pricing strategies, reagent sourcing, and cross-border collaboration for CRP testing labs
Recent tariff adjustments enacted by the United States have introduced new considerations for global supply chains, reagent sourcing, and procurement strategies for CRP testing stakeholders. Import duties and tariff classification changes affect the landed cost of instruments and reagents, altering procurement calculus for clinical laboratories and point-of-care networks. In response, procurement teams and suppliers are re-evaluating sourcing strategies to manage input costs while preserving assay quality and continuity of supply.
Beyond immediate pricing effects, tariff-driven shifts influence strategic decisions about manufacturing footprints and inventory practices. Manufacturers may accelerate diversification of contract manufacturing locations or increase regional warehousing to mitigate border-related uncertainties. For healthcare providers and diagnostic laboratories, the result is a renewed focus on supplier resilience, multi-source validation of assays, and contractual terms that address lead-time variability. These practices help preserve testing continuity and reduce clinical risk when cross-border logistics are disrupted.
Importantly, tariffs also reshape commercial conversations around value. Payers and procurement committees scrutinize total cost of ownership more closely, prompting vendors to emphasize service, warranty, and local technical support as part of their value proposition. As a consequence, collaborative engagement between commercial teams and clinical leaders is becoming essential to evaluate trade-offs between cost containment and diagnostic performance, ensuring that decisions maintain clinical integrity while addressing fiscal constraints.
Key segmentation insights on product categories, assay technologies, end users, clinical applications, and sample matrices that shape CRP testing strategies
Meaningful segmentation analysis clarifies where clinical and commercial opportunities concentrate across products, technologies, end users, applications, test types, and sample matrices. From a product perspective, the landscape covers instruments, reagents and kits, and software and services. Instruments divide into laboratory analyzers and point-of-care analyzers, each serving distinct operational contexts; reagents and kits separate into CRP kits and high-sensitivity CRP kits that support different clinical use cases; and software and services include consulting services and data management software that enable implementation, quality control, and analytics.
Technology segmentation further refines assay selection with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay platforms, immunoturbidimetric methods, and nephelometry each offering different performance, throughput, and integration characteristics. Immunoturbidimetric approaches can be sub-categorized into latex-enhanced and turbidimetric variants, which influence analytical sensitivity and workflow simplicity. These technical distinctions inform procurement choices depending on whether a setting prioritizes automation, rapid turnaround, or minimal hands-on time.
End-user segmentation spans academic and research institutes, clinics, diagnostic laboratories, and hospitals. Within clinics, distinctions between higher-capacity Tier I clinics and smaller Tier II clinics determine the feasibility of on-site analyzers. Diagnostic laboratories split into hospital-based labs and independent labs, and hospitals themselves segment into general and specialized facilities, each with unique demand signals and operational constraints. Application-driven segmentation highlights clinical priorities across cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and infection and inflammatory disorders. Cardiovascular applications separate into coronary heart disease and stroke considerations, while the infection and inflammatory disorders category includes autoimmune disorders, bacterial infections, and viral infections, guiding assay sensitivity and reporting needs.
Test type and sample type segmentation answer practical deployment questions: quantitative tests versus semi-quantitative formats influence the choice between automated and manual workflows; quantitative testing further stratifies into automated and manual formats while semi-quantitative options include immunophoresis and lateral flow modalities that suit rapid or decentralized screening. Sample matrices span plasma, serum, and whole blood; plasma differentiates into EDTA and heparin plasma, and whole blood divides into capillary and venous samples. Together, these segmentation layers create a matrix that clarifies where to prioritize investment, training, and validation to match clinical use cases with operational capabilities.
Regional insights comparing Americas, EMEA, and Asia-Pacific dynamics in adoption, regulation, reimbursement, and innovation influencing CRP testing pathways
Regional dynamics materially affect adoption, regulatory navigation, and innovation pathways for CRP testing. In the Americas, established clinical laboratory networks and an emphasis on point-of-care deployment in primary care and emergency settings drive demand for rapid, reliable assays that integrate with electronic health systems. Reimbursement mechanisms and strong clinical guideline influence often accelerate uptake when evidence aligns with payer criteria, but procurement cycles and vendor qualification processes can still delay deployment.
Europe, Middle East & Africa presents a heterogeneous environment where regulatory rigor in some jurisdictions coexists with resource constraints in others. This diversity creates opportunities for tiered product offerings that balance cost and performance, and for partnerships that support local capacity building. In several EMEA markets, centralized laboratory systems remain dominant, shaping a preference for high-throughput analyzer platforms, while pockets of decentralized care adoption favor point-of-care solutions.
Asia-Pacific exhibits rapid innovation and deployment in both urban and emerging settings, with significant investment in diagnostic infrastructure and digital health platforms. Regional manufacturers and contract producers play a prominent role in supply resilience, and collaborative research networks contribute to context-specific validation of assays. Across all regions, regulatory harmonization efforts, reimbursement pathways, and supply chain localization are the primary levers that determine the speed and scale of CRP testing adoption.
Company-level insights on competitive positioning, portfolio differentiation, partnerships, manufacturing resilience, and strategic investment in CRP testing
Leading industry participants are differentiating through a combination of technological depth, commercial partnerships, and service-oriented propositions. Companies that pair robust instrument platforms with validated reagent portfolios and responsive technical service networks create higher switching costs for customers and are more effective at supporting clinical rollouts. Strategic collaborations with academic centers and clinical networks are also common, enabling faster validation cycles and higher credibility for new assay claims.
Manufacturers are investing in supply chain resilience to reduce vulnerability to border constraints and to ensure continuity for high-volume laboratories and distributed clinic networks. This includes diversified manufacturing, regional distribution hubs, and longer-term supplier contracts backed by quality assurance frameworks. On the commercial side, companies increasingly emphasize recurring revenue models that combine consumables, maintenance, and software subscriptions, aligning vendor incentives with sustained device performance.
Smaller, specialized firms are carving niches with innovative lateral flow or single-use cartridge formats that address point-of-care needs, while larger diagnostics companies leverage scale to offer integrated laboratory solutions. Across the competitive landscape, the ability to demonstrate clinical value through real-world evidence, provide regulatory support, and deliver dependable local service distinguishes market leaders from newer entrants.
Actionable guidance for industry leaders to accelerate adoption, streamline operations, secure supply continuity, and apply data-driven insights in CRP testing
Industry leaders should prioritize an integrated approach that aligns assay selection with care pathways and operational realities. Begin by establishing clear clinical use cases and performance requirements so procurement aligns with intended diagnostic impact. Where rapid decision-making is critical, favor point-of-care options that have undergone rigorous comparison against laboratory standards; where throughput and cost-efficiency matter, select laboratory analyzers paired with validated reagent systems.
Operationally, develop multi-source supplier strategies and contractual safeguards to protect against supply disruptions. Invest in local technical training and service contracts to preserve uptime and assay fidelity. Additionally, embed data management capabilities to support quality control, remote monitoring, and outcome correlation, thereby turning diagnostic data into actionable clinical intelligence. Finally, engage proactively with regulators and payers to build evidence packages that address clinical utility and economic value, streamlining reimbursement and adoption pathways.
Research methodology outlining data sourcing, validation protocols, expert consultation, assay evaluation, and analytical approaches applied to CRP testing
This research synthesizes primary and secondary evidence through a multi-method approach designed to ensure robustness and applicability. Data sourcing combined peer-reviewed literature, regulatory documentation, product technical specifications, and supplier disclosures with targeted interviews of clinical laboratory directors, procurement leaders, and assay developers. Triangulation of these inputs enabled cross-validation of performance claims, operational constraints, and adoption drivers.
Validation protocols included comparative assessment of assay principles and workflows, review of quality control frameworks, and evaluation of integration capabilities for laboratory information systems. Expert consultation provided contextual interpretation of clinical utility across care settings. Analytical approaches emphasized reproducible classification of segmentation layers, scenario testing for supply chain sensitivity, and qualitative synthesis of strategic implications to ensure that findings support practical decision-making while reflecting industry best practices.
Conclusive synthesis highlighting strategic priorities, persistent challenges, enabling innovations, and the imperative for unified stakeholder action in CRP testing
In sum, the evolving CRP testing environment demands strategic alignment across technology choice, operational execution, and commercial engagement. Innovations in assay formats and digital integration expand clinical utility, while supply chain considerations and regional regulatory dynamics shape deployment feasibility. The cumulative picture underscores the need for holistic solutions that combine instruments, reagents, and data capabilities to meet the divergent needs of hospitals, laboratories, clinics, and research centers.
Moving forward, stakeholders that adopt integrated validation, resilient sourcing, and proactive payer engagement will be best positioned to translate diagnostic potential into consistent clinical impact. The synthesis presented here offers the foundation for targeted action: refining procurement criteria, prioritizing investments in interoperability and service, and collaborating with clinical partners to generate the evidence necessary for sustained adoption.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Strategic introduction to C-reactive protein testing highlighting clinical importance, diagnostic evolution, and implications for patient management and policy
C-reactive protein testing occupies a central role in clinical diagnostics as a rapid, accessible biomarker of inflammation used across primary care, acute care, and research contexts. Its relevance has expanded beyond traditional inflammatory disease monitoring to support cardiovascular risk assessment, infection triage, and the evaluation of chronic disease trajectories. As clinical pathways evolve, CRP assays are increasingly positioned at the intersection of laboratory-grade accuracy and point-of-care convenience, demanding clarity on performance trade-offs, workflow integration, and result interpretation.
This executive summary synthesizes the critical themes that decision-makers must consider when investing in CRP testing capability. It frames the diagnostic landscape in terms of technological innovation, regulatory and reimbursement pressures, supply chain dynamics, and clinical adoption patterns. Readers are guided through areas of strategic importance-assay selection, deployment models, and stakeholder collaboration-so that healthcare leaders and industry strategists can prioritize interventions that align diagnostic performance with patient care objectives and operational realities.
Transformative shifts reshaping CRP testing pathways driven by point-of-care adoption, assay innovation, digital integration, and collaborative research
The CRP testing landscape is experiencing transformative shifts driven by technological miniaturization, digital connectivity, and a stronger emphasis on decentralized care. Point-of-care analyzers are pushing diagnostic capabilities closer to the patient, narrowing the gap between symptom onset and clinical decision-making. At the same time, laboratory analyzers are evolving to deliver higher throughput and integrated data outputs that support longitudinal patient management. These parallel trajectories are reshaping procurement priorities and clinical protocols as stakeholders weigh the operational benefits of rapid results against the need for standardized assay performance.
Assay chemistry innovations are another major axis of change. The maturation of high-sensitivity CRP formats has expanded use cases into cardiovascular risk stratification while improved immunoturbidimetric and nephelometric platforms have enhanced reproducibility for routine diagnostics. Alongside chemistry, software and data services are emerging as differentiators: data management platforms and consulting services enable quality assurance, remote monitoring, and analytics-driven decision support. Consequently, organizations must consider end-to-end solutions rather than discrete products, integrating instruments, reagents, and digital layers to achieve measurable clinical and operational improvements.
Finally, collaborative research and regulatory clarity are accelerating iterative improvement. Cross-sector partnerships among device manufacturers, clinical networks, and academic centers support validation studies and real-world evidence generation, while clearer regulatory pathways help translate innovations into practice. Together, these shifts create opportunities for stakeholders that anticipate integrated workflows and prioritize interoperability, reproducibility, and clinician-centric reporting.
Cumulative impact of United States tariff changes on supply chains, pricing strategies, reagent sourcing, and cross-border collaboration for CRP testing labs
Recent tariff adjustments enacted by the United States have introduced new considerations for global supply chains, reagent sourcing, and procurement strategies for CRP testing stakeholders. Import duties and tariff classification changes affect the landed cost of instruments and reagents, altering procurement calculus for clinical laboratories and point-of-care networks. In response, procurement teams and suppliers are re-evaluating sourcing strategies to manage input costs while preserving assay quality and continuity of supply.
Beyond immediate pricing effects, tariff-driven shifts influence strategic decisions about manufacturing footprints and inventory practices. Manufacturers may accelerate diversification of contract manufacturing locations or increase regional warehousing to mitigate border-related uncertainties. For healthcare providers and diagnostic laboratories, the result is a renewed focus on supplier resilience, multi-source validation of assays, and contractual terms that address lead-time variability. These practices help preserve testing continuity and reduce clinical risk when cross-border logistics are disrupted.
Importantly, tariffs also reshape commercial conversations around value. Payers and procurement committees scrutinize total cost of ownership more closely, prompting vendors to emphasize service, warranty, and local technical support as part of their value proposition. As a consequence, collaborative engagement between commercial teams and clinical leaders is becoming essential to evaluate trade-offs between cost containment and diagnostic performance, ensuring that decisions maintain clinical integrity while addressing fiscal constraints.
Key segmentation insights on product categories, assay technologies, end users, clinical applications, and sample matrices that shape CRP testing strategies
Meaningful segmentation analysis clarifies where clinical and commercial opportunities concentrate across products, technologies, end users, applications, test types, and sample matrices. From a product perspective, the landscape covers instruments, reagents and kits, and software and services. Instruments divide into laboratory analyzers and point-of-care analyzers, each serving distinct operational contexts; reagents and kits separate into CRP kits and high-sensitivity CRP kits that support different clinical use cases; and software and services include consulting services and data management software that enable implementation, quality control, and analytics.
Technology segmentation further refines assay selection with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay platforms, immunoturbidimetric methods, and nephelometry each offering different performance, throughput, and integration characteristics. Immunoturbidimetric approaches can be sub-categorized into latex-enhanced and turbidimetric variants, which influence analytical sensitivity and workflow simplicity. These technical distinctions inform procurement choices depending on whether a setting prioritizes automation, rapid turnaround, or minimal hands-on time.
End-user segmentation spans academic and research institutes, clinics, diagnostic laboratories, and hospitals. Within clinics, distinctions between higher-capacity Tier I clinics and smaller Tier II clinics determine the feasibility of on-site analyzers. Diagnostic laboratories split into hospital-based labs and independent labs, and hospitals themselves segment into general and specialized facilities, each with unique demand signals and operational constraints. Application-driven segmentation highlights clinical priorities across cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and infection and inflammatory disorders. Cardiovascular applications separate into coronary heart disease and stroke considerations, while the infection and inflammatory disorders category includes autoimmune disorders, bacterial infections, and viral infections, guiding assay sensitivity and reporting needs.
Test type and sample type segmentation answer practical deployment questions: quantitative tests versus semi-quantitative formats influence the choice between automated and manual workflows; quantitative testing further stratifies into automated and manual formats while semi-quantitative options include immunophoresis and lateral flow modalities that suit rapid or decentralized screening. Sample matrices span plasma, serum, and whole blood; plasma differentiates into EDTA and heparin plasma, and whole blood divides into capillary and venous samples. Together, these segmentation layers create a matrix that clarifies where to prioritize investment, training, and validation to match clinical use cases with operational capabilities.
Regional insights comparing Americas, EMEA, and Asia-Pacific dynamics in adoption, regulation, reimbursement, and innovation influencing CRP testing pathways
Regional dynamics materially affect adoption, regulatory navigation, and innovation pathways for CRP testing. In the Americas, established clinical laboratory networks and an emphasis on point-of-care deployment in primary care and emergency settings drive demand for rapid, reliable assays that integrate with electronic health systems. Reimbursement mechanisms and strong clinical guideline influence often accelerate uptake when evidence aligns with payer criteria, but procurement cycles and vendor qualification processes can still delay deployment.
Europe, Middle East & Africa presents a heterogeneous environment where regulatory rigor in some jurisdictions coexists with resource constraints in others. This diversity creates opportunities for tiered product offerings that balance cost and performance, and for partnerships that support local capacity building. In several EMEA markets, centralized laboratory systems remain dominant, shaping a preference for high-throughput analyzer platforms, while pockets of decentralized care adoption favor point-of-care solutions.
Asia-Pacific exhibits rapid innovation and deployment in both urban and emerging settings, with significant investment in diagnostic infrastructure and digital health platforms. Regional manufacturers and contract producers play a prominent role in supply resilience, and collaborative research networks contribute to context-specific validation of assays. Across all regions, regulatory harmonization efforts, reimbursement pathways, and supply chain localization are the primary levers that determine the speed and scale of CRP testing adoption.
Company-level insights on competitive positioning, portfolio differentiation, partnerships, manufacturing resilience, and strategic investment in CRP testing
Leading industry participants are differentiating through a combination of technological depth, commercial partnerships, and service-oriented propositions. Companies that pair robust instrument platforms with validated reagent portfolios and responsive technical service networks create higher switching costs for customers and are more effective at supporting clinical rollouts. Strategic collaborations with academic centers and clinical networks are also common, enabling faster validation cycles and higher credibility for new assay claims.
Manufacturers are investing in supply chain resilience to reduce vulnerability to border constraints and to ensure continuity for high-volume laboratories and distributed clinic networks. This includes diversified manufacturing, regional distribution hubs, and longer-term supplier contracts backed by quality assurance frameworks. On the commercial side, companies increasingly emphasize recurring revenue models that combine consumables, maintenance, and software subscriptions, aligning vendor incentives with sustained device performance.
Smaller, specialized firms are carving niches with innovative lateral flow or single-use cartridge formats that address point-of-care needs, while larger diagnostics companies leverage scale to offer integrated laboratory solutions. Across the competitive landscape, the ability to demonstrate clinical value through real-world evidence, provide regulatory support, and deliver dependable local service distinguishes market leaders from newer entrants.
Actionable guidance for industry leaders to accelerate adoption, streamline operations, secure supply continuity, and apply data-driven insights in CRP testing
Industry leaders should prioritize an integrated approach that aligns assay selection with care pathways and operational realities. Begin by establishing clear clinical use cases and performance requirements so procurement aligns with intended diagnostic impact. Where rapid decision-making is critical, favor point-of-care options that have undergone rigorous comparison against laboratory standards; where throughput and cost-efficiency matter, select laboratory analyzers paired with validated reagent systems.
Operationally, develop multi-source supplier strategies and contractual safeguards to protect against supply disruptions. Invest in local technical training and service contracts to preserve uptime and assay fidelity. Additionally, embed data management capabilities to support quality control, remote monitoring, and outcome correlation, thereby turning diagnostic data into actionable clinical intelligence. Finally, engage proactively with regulators and payers to build evidence packages that address clinical utility and economic value, streamlining reimbursement and adoption pathways.
Research methodology outlining data sourcing, validation protocols, expert consultation, assay evaluation, and analytical approaches applied to CRP testing
This research synthesizes primary and secondary evidence through a multi-method approach designed to ensure robustness and applicability. Data sourcing combined peer-reviewed literature, regulatory documentation, product technical specifications, and supplier disclosures with targeted interviews of clinical laboratory directors, procurement leaders, and assay developers. Triangulation of these inputs enabled cross-validation of performance claims, operational constraints, and adoption drivers.
Validation protocols included comparative assessment of assay principles and workflows, review of quality control frameworks, and evaluation of integration capabilities for laboratory information systems. Expert consultation provided contextual interpretation of clinical utility across care settings. Analytical approaches emphasized reproducible classification of segmentation layers, scenario testing for supply chain sensitivity, and qualitative synthesis of strategic implications to ensure that findings support practical decision-making while reflecting industry best practices.
Conclusive synthesis highlighting strategic priorities, persistent challenges, enabling innovations, and the imperative for unified stakeholder action in CRP testing
In sum, the evolving CRP testing environment demands strategic alignment across technology choice, operational execution, and commercial engagement. Innovations in assay formats and digital integration expand clinical utility, while supply chain considerations and regional regulatory dynamics shape deployment feasibility. The cumulative picture underscores the need for holistic solutions that combine instruments, reagents, and data capabilities to meet the divergent needs of hospitals, laboratories, clinics, and research centers.
Moving forward, stakeholders that adopt integrated validation, resilient sourcing, and proactive payer engagement will be best positioned to translate diagnostic potential into consistent clinical impact. The synthesis presented here offers the foundation for targeted action: refining procurement criteria, prioritizing investments in interoperability and service, and collaborating with clinical partners to generate the evidence necessary for sustained adoption.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
192 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Advancements in point-of-care CRP testing platforms enabling rapid bedside inflammation monitoring
- 5.2. Regulatory approvals and standardization efforts for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein assays
- 5.3. Integration of CRP testing with digital health tools for personalized cardiovascular risk assessment
- 5.4. Expansion of home-based C-reactive protein monitoring kits driven by patient self-care trends
- 5.5. Emergence of multiplex immunoassays combining CRP with cytokine panels for comprehensive inflammation profiling
- 5.6. Strategic collaborations between diagnostics firms and biotech startups to innovate CRP assay technologies
- 5.7. Growing adoption of CRP testing in emerging markets amid rising prevalence of chronic inflammatory diseases
- 5.8. Impact of telemedicine expansion on remote CRP sample collection and virtual diagnostic workflows
- 5.9. Evolution of microfluidic and lab-on-a-chip CRP detection systems reducing assay time and sample volumes
- 5.10. Increasing reimbursement coverage and policy support for high-sensitivity CRP testing by healthcare payers
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by Product
- 8.1. Instruments
- 8.1.1. Laboratory Analyzers
- 8.1.2. Point-Of-Care Analyzers
- 8.2. Reagents & Kits
- 8.2.1. Crp Kits
- 8.2.2. Hs-Crp Kits
- 8.3. Software & Services
- 8.3.1. Consulting Services
- 8.3.2. Data Management Software
- 9. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by Technology
- 9.1. Elisa
- 9.2. Immunoturbidimetric
- 9.2.1. Latex Enhanced
- 9.2.2. Turbidimetric
- 9.3. Nephelometry
- 10. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by Test Type
- 10.1. Quantitative
- 10.1.1. Automated Tests
- 10.1.2. Manual Tests
- 10.2. Semi-Quantitative
- 10.2.1. Immunophoresis Tests
- 10.2.2. Lateral Flow Tests
- 11. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by Sample Type
- 11.1. Plasma
- 11.1.1. Edta Plasma
- 11.1.2. Heparin Plasma
- 11.2. Serum
- 11.3. Whole Blood
- 11.3.1. Capillary Blood
- 11.3.2. Venous Blood
- 12. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by End User
- 12.1. Academic & Research Institutes
- 12.2. Clinics
- 12.2.1. Tier I Clinics
- 12.2.2. Tier II Clinics
- 12.3. Diagnostic Laboratories
- 12.3.1. Hospital-Based Labs
- 12.3.2. Independent Labs
- 12.4. Hospitals
- 12.4.1. General Hospitals
- 12.4.2. Specialized Hospitals
- 13. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by Application
- 13.1. Cancer
- 13.2. Cardiovascular Diseases
- 13.2.1. Coronary Heart Disease
- 13.2.2. Stroke
- 13.3. Diabetes
- 13.4. Infection & Inflammatory Disorders
- 13.4.1. Autoimmune Disorders
- 13.4.2. Bacterial Infections
- 13.4.3. Viral Infections
- 14. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by Region
- 14.1. Americas
- 14.1.1. North America
- 14.1.2. Latin America
- 14.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 14.2.1. Europe
- 14.2.2. Middle East
- 14.2.3. Africa
- 14.3. Asia-Pacific
- 15. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by Group
- 15.1. ASEAN
- 15.2. GCC
- 15.3. European Union
- 15.4. BRICS
- 15.5. G7
- 15.6. NATO
- 16. C-Reactive Protein Testing Market, by Country
- 16.1. United States
- 16.2. Canada
- 16.3. Mexico
- 16.4. Brazil
- 16.5. United Kingdom
- 16.6. Germany
- 16.7. France
- 16.8. Russia
- 16.9. Italy
- 16.10. Spain
- 16.11. China
- 16.12. India
- 16.13. Japan
- 16.14. Australia
- 16.15. South Korea
- 17. Competitive Landscape
- 17.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 17.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 17.3. Competitive Analysis
- 17.3.1. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
- 17.3.2. Abcam PLC
- 17.3.3. Alere Inc.
- 17.3.4. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.
- 17.3.5. bioMérieux SA
- 17.3.6. BODITECH MED, INC
- 17.3.7. CTK Biotech Inc.
- 17.3.8. Danaher Corporation
- 17.3.9. DiaSorin S.p.A.
- 17.3.10. Eurolyser Diagnostica GmbH
- 17.3.11. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
- 17.3.12. Fujifilm Corporation
- 17.3.13. Getein Biotech, Inc.
- 17.3.14. HORIBA, Ltd.
- 17.3.15. Lumiradx Healthcare Private Limited
- 17.3.16. Merck KGaA
- 17.3.17. Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, LLC
- 17.3.18. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated
- 17.3.19. Randox Laboratories Ltd.
- 17.3.20. Roche Diagnostics International AG
- 17.3.21. SD Biosensor, Inc.
- 17.3.22. Sekisui Diagnostics
- 17.3.23. Siemens Healthineers AG
- 17.3.24. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
- 17.3.25. Trinity Biotech PLC
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
