ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2007
Problems of basing patient recruitment for primary care studies on routine laboratory submissions.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical diagnosis and treatment of common respiratory tract infections in relation to microbiological profiles in rural health facilities in China: implications for antibiotic stewardship.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Article
- Cell therapy and satellite centers: the Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network experience.Contemporary clinical trials · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of routine urine submission rates for estimation of patient enrollment in primary care studies of acute urinary symptoms may overestimate patient recruitment rate.
aimsTo compare the rates of submission of urines and significant bacteriuria from patients presenting with acute urinary symptoms in study general practices to routine microbiology laboratory urines.
methodsRoutine laboratory urine submissions were determined by counting all mid-stream urine specimens submitted to the laboratory from 12 large general practitioner (GP) practices served by Gloucester and Southmead microbiology departments over two years (2000-02). Urine specimens were requested from all patients with acute urinary symptoms referred at research nurse practice visits over the same time period. The annual study urine submission was calculated using the ratio of the number of nurse practice visits to the annual number of possible consulting sessions. Significant bacteriuria was defined as a urine growing a single organism reported as >10(5) colony forming units/ml. Rates per 1000 patients were calculated using practice population data.
resultsThe urine submission rate from study patients with acute urinary symptoms was one-third the routine urine submission rate from the same practices. The significant bacteriuria rate attained from the study was less than half the routine significant bacteriuria rate.
conclusionTwo-thirds of routine urine samples submitted by GPs are probably not for the investigation of acute urinary symptoms. Basing consultation sample size power calculations for primary care studies or sentinel practice-based surveillance in urinary tract infection on routine laboratory submissions is unreliable and will lead to significant overestimation of recruitment rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.