Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21773821›Full record

ReviewPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2011

Difficulties in diagnosing urinary tract infections in small children.

Kjell Tullus

Abstract readEditorialReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Urinary tract infections in children.Lancet (London, England) · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Low urinary bacterial counts: do they count?Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kjell Tullus

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children appear to be simple and straightforward matters, but there is as yet no consensus on UTIs in this patient group, and it remains one of the most - if not the most - controversial fields in paediatric medicine. Controversy and the lack of consensus can be found in many areas, including the diagnosis and management of UTIs in paediatric patients. Consequently, children with a UTI are investigated and treated quite differently in different parts of the world and also within different parts of the same country. One factor contributing to the current situation is the unexpected difficulty in diagnosing a UTI in children. This difficulty has implications not only for clinical work but also for scientific studies. Substantial over- and under-diagnosing can result from practical difficulties in at least three areas, including problems with collecting urine samples, in interpreting bacterial numbers correctly, and in confusing infantile asymptomatic bacteriuria and a true symptomatic febrile UTI. In this review, these problems will be discussed in detail as well as the implications they have had on clinical practice and research on UTIs.

Indexed as

ChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleUrinary Tract Infections

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.