Question special

Hi everyone, jumping a bit late to this discussion. Thought the article was very relevant for our current practice.
I wonder if the the same clinician would have change their management if they had or didn't have a procalcitonin level available or whether this was assessed.
I see procalcitonin as an extra piece of information that is useful when the value is in Tiers 1 or 4. As the article suggest, when the value is <0.1 or >0.5, it is useful and even reassuring.
However, this lab becomes controversial when it does not correlate with the clinical picture (i.e. clinically ill patient that could benefit from antibiotics with procalcitonin <0.1, or vice versa). Were clinicians asked if they would have prescribed antibiotics based on clinical signs but refrained from doing so based on lab values?